Azar v. Lyublina

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-03434
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NAIFEH AZAR, Case No. 24-cv-03434-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. REMAND

10 MARIYA LYUBLINA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 7 Defendants. 11

12 13 This action, originally filed in state court on April 16, 2021, stems from a property-related 14 dispute. ECF 1-2. Defendants Mariya Lyubina and Claudio A. Bluer move to remand the case 15 following its removal to this Court on June 6, 2024. ECF 7 at 3; ECF 13 at 1-2. They argue that 16 the removing defendant, Dean Earl Visso,1 improperly effected removal by failing to obtain 17 consent from all other defendants. Id. The Court agrees. 18 In cases involving multiple defendants, they must all “ ‘join in the application ’ ” for 19 removal. Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248 (1900)). 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1447(c) authorizes a motion to remand a case “on the basis of any defect other than lack of 22 subject matter jurisdiction[,]” and the Ninth Circuit has held that the failure to obtain consent of all 23 defendants “is a defect under § 1447(c).” Atl. Nat. Tr. LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 621 F.3d 931, 24 938 (9th Cir. 2010). 25 26 1 The moving defendants allege that Plaintiff Naifeh Azar fabricated the existence of Visso, as 27 Azar had been subject to nine orders to show cause in state court and a hearing on a motion for 1 Here, Visso’s notice of removal is silent on whether he obtained consent from the 2 || remaining defendants to effect removal, and the request to remand by the moving defendants 3 || would undermine any claim that he obtained such consent. See ECF | at 1-5. Accordingly, 4 || because the notice of removal does not indicate compliance with the requirement to obtain consent 5 of all defendants, and because neither Visso (nor any other party) has filed any opposition to the 6 instant motion, itis GRANTED. See Dubon v. HBSC Bank Nevada, N.A., No. 05-2799 SC, 2005 7 WL 2249902, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2005) (granting motion to remand where removing 8 defendant obtained consent from only one of several defendants). The Clerk is directed to remand 9 this matter to the San Francisco Superior Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 2, 2024 xs 12 □□ = coh 13 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 5 14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28