Stewart v. Fay Servicing, LLC
- 3:24-cv-01775
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Stewart v. Fay Servicing, the court ordered Stewart to address possible jurisdiction and service problems before considering her emergency request.
Kara Michelle Stewart must respond to the court’s concerns about federal jurisdiction and service. Fay Servicing, LLC is affected because the court questioned whether it was properly served and whether its citizenship was adequately alleged.
What happened
Stewart sued Fay Servicing, LLC in a foreclosure-related case and asked for an emergency order because she said a foreclosure sale was scheduled for March 27, 2024.
The court questioned whether Stewart had shown that the parties were citizens of different states. It also questioned whether she properly served Fay Servicing because her filing described service by email without showing consent or service on an authorized agent.
The court ordered Stewart to file an amended complaint or written response about jurisdiction, and an updated proof of service or written response, by noon on March 26, 2024. The court did not decide the emergency request in this order.
The detailed version
- Stewart v. Fay Servicing, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-01775
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
Kara Michelle Stewart filed a foreclosure-related lawsuit against Fay Servicing, LLC. She also filed a request for a temporary restraining order, or emergency court relief, which was still pending. Stewart alleged that a foreclosure sale was scheduled for March 27, 2024.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Stewart based federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states. The court explained that a limited liability company is treated as a citizen of every state where its owners or members are citizens. Stewart’s complaint identified Fay Servicing’s principal address but did not identify the citizenship of its owners or members. The court therefore said the complaint did not appear to adequately establish diversity jurisdiction.
The court ordered Stewart either to explain in writing why federal jurisdiction was proper or to file a first amended complaint identifying the citizenship of all Fay Servicing owners and members. If any owner or member was itself a limited liability company, Stewart also had to identify that entity’s citizenship.
Proof of Service
The court had previously ordered Stewart to serve the temporary restraining order and the court’s order on Fay Servicing’s authorized agents and on any counsel with whom she had communicated about the matter. Stewart filed a proof of service stating that the temporary restraining order had been emailed to several Fay Servicing and Clear Recon Corp. email addresses. Her counsel’s declaration did not show that Fay Servicing had agreed to accept service by email or explain how service was made on Fay Servicing’s authorized agent.
The court therefore ordered Stewart to file either an updated proof of service showing compliance with the court’s order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a written response addressing the identified problems.
Order
The court required Stewart to file both the jurisdiction submission and the updated proof of service or written response by 12:00 p.m. on March 26, 2024. The order did not dismiss the case, decide whether jurisdiction ultimately exists, or rule on the pending temporary restraining order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.