Li v. Mummah

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 TIANQING LI, 8 Case No. 22-cv-07626 NC Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE 10 TO OSC FROM CROSS- PHILLIP MUMMAH, COMPLAINANT MUMMAH; AND 11 CONSENT/DECLINE TO Defendant and MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 Cross-Complainant, JURISDICTION BY LI AND 13 v. MUMMAH

14 SCOTT A. FLAXMAN, Re: ECF 1

15 Cross-Claim Defendant. 16

17 18 Scott A. Flaxman sought to remove the cross-claim filed against him in Santa Clara 19 County Superior Court to this Court. ECF 1, Notice of Removal of Cross-Claim. On 20 December 9, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding Removal, asking Flaxman 21 to explain why the case should not be remanded back to the Superior Court under 28 22 U.S.C. § 1441 and Home Depot, U.S.A. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1745 (2019). ECF 10. 23 A remand order may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including 24 attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). Flaxman 25 responded with a brief the next day, ECF 11, supplemented by exhibits at ECF 12, 13, and 26 14, and a second brief on December 12, 2022. ECF 15. Flaxman may not file any 27 additional briefs in response to the OSC without further Court permission. 1 Cross-complainant Phillip Mummah is ordered to respond to the removal and the 2 || Court’s Order to Show Cause by December 20, 2022. In particular, Mummah should 3 || address (1) whether he waives defect in the removal and prefers to litigate the cross-claim 4 || in this federal court, see ECF 15 at pp. 6-7; and (2) whether he favors or opposes severance 5 || of the cross-claim as requested by Flaxman, see ECF 15 at pp. 3-4. 6 Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) a United States 7 || magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a civil matter upon the consent of “all 8 || parties.” See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (all parties must 9 || consent in order for jurisdiction to vest with the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(c)(1)). Here, Flaxman has consented (ECF 4), but not all parties have consented to the 11 || jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under § 636(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff Li and Cross- 12 || Complainant Mummah are each asked to file the attached form indicating consent/decline 13 || to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by December 20, 2022. C 14 The Court awaits these filings before taking any further action on the removal to 15 || federal court by Flaxman. 16 5 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: December 13, 2022 —=> 20 United States Magistrate fudge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28