Kendra McKenzie v. Homero Nino Munoz

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02170
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5|| Kendra McKenzie, Case No. 2:25-cv-02170-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER Vv. 8, Homero Nino Munoz, 9 Defendant(s). 10 Defendant removed this case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds. Docket No. 11] 1. Defendant identifies himself as a “resident of Nevada,” see id. at 3,” which presumably renders 12] removal improper under the local defendant rule: “A civil action otherwise removable solely on 13] the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the 14] parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such 15] action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). As this is a procedural defect, as opposed to a 16] jurisdictional defect, the Court will not sua sponte remand to state court. Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., 17] Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 940, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). Instead, Plaintiffis ORDERED to file a notice, no 18] later than November 13, 2025, whether she wishes the case to be remanded back to state court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 5, 2025 21 Z. Nancy J. Ko 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ' This case is proceeding before the undersigned magistrate judge as part of the opt-out 35 consent program. See Docket Nos. 6-7; see also Gen. Order 2023-11. ? The removal statute turns on the parties’ citizenship, not residency. 28 U.S.C. § 26] 1332(a)(1). Although there is some similarity in those concepts, they are not the same. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F. 3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Based on the information provided, 27| however, the Court has no reason to believe that Defendant is a citizen of any state other than Nevada. If Defendant contends that he is not a citizen of Nevada, he must immediately file an amended petition for removal so explaining.