Potter v. Clear Recon Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NYLA F. POTTER et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01173-LK Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE v. OF REMOVAL CLEAR RECON CORP. et al, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice of Removal. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiffs seek to remove a case currently pending in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, captioned Andy Investments, LLC v. Nyla Fern Potter et al., Cause No. 24-2-21833-5 SEA. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ removal is procedurally defective. The proper procedure for removal of a case from state court to federal court “requires the party seeking removal to file notice of removal in a newly instituted case in federal court.” Mlotek v. Mlotek, No. 10-CV-432, 2011 WL 441526, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2011) (emphasis added); Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Sch. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Ass’n Ins. Co., No. 8:14-CV-811- T-23EAJ, 2014 WL 12705576, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2014) (similar). Plaintiffs may not remove a case into a previously existing federal case. Of course, a removing party may note that a newly removed matter is related to another currently pending action and seek a court order consolidating the two actions, but that does not excuse the obligation to initiate a new action. See e.g., Mlotek, 2011 WL 441526, at *1 ; Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Sch,

2014 WL 12705576, at *1. Moreover, the removal notice does not attach a copy of the state court complaint as required by Local Civil Rule 101(b). See generally Dkt. No. 34-1. The Court thus STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Notice of Removal. Dkt. No. 34. Future violations of applicable law may result in sanctions. Dated this 1st day of October, 2024. A Lauren King United States District Judge