Stanley H. Solvey v. Mehta, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY H. SOLVEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01074-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT STATE COURT RECORD TO 13 v. INCLUDE SERVICE FORMS 14 MEHTA, et al., TWENTY-ONE DAY EADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action back to state court 18 filed on September 18, 2025. (Doc. 7). Defendants California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”), S. Heyne, 20 A. Mehta, and M. Whittaker filed an opposition to the motion on October 9, 2025. (Doc. 8). 21 Plaintiff filed a timely1 reply in support of his motion on January 26, 2026. (Doc. 12). 22 Plaintiff originally commenced this action by filing a civil complaint in Sacramento 23 County Superior Court on June 17, 2025 entitled Solvey v. Mehta, et al., Case No. 25CV-14337 24 against the following defendants (1) Dr. Anand Mehta; (2) S. Gates; (3) Eric McDaniel; (4) Steve 25 Heyne; (5) Conall McCabe; (6) Michael Whittaker; (7) T. Henne; (8) CDCR; (9) CCHCS; and 26

27 1 On December 18, 2025, Plaintiff advised the Court that he had not received Defendants’ opposition and produced his mail log that reflecting no mailing from the Deputy Attorney General. The Court directed 28 Defendants to re-serve its opposition and granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a reply. (Doc. 10). 1 (10) Lauren Barnak. (Docs. 1, 1-1, 1-2). On August 18, 2025, Defendants CCHCS, CDCR, S. 2 Gates, S. Heyne, A. Mehta, and M. Whittaker removed the action to this court based on federal 3 question. (Doc. 1). In the Notice of Removal, Defendants state “This Notice of Removal is 4 timely filed within thirty days of the date Defendant received the Summons and Complaint.” (Id. 5 at 2 ¶ 4). Defendants attach only Plaintiff’s complaint with exhibits, which number over 100 6 pages, to their Notice of Removal but omit copies of process, or court orders, if any, as required 7 by § 1446(a). The failure to attach proof of service of summons is a de minimis defect and not 8 alone grounds for remand. Kristek v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4924748, at 9 *3 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) (finding failure to include proof of summons served on every 10 defendant with the notice of removal is a “de minimis defect” that is curable even after the 30-day 11 removal period has expired) (citing Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 12 (9th Cir. 2013)). 13 Here, Plaintiff seeks to remand this action to state court on the basis that Defendants’ 14 removal is “[p]rocedurally [d]efective and deficient.” (Doc. 7 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiff argues 15 (1) Defendants did not timely effect the removal within 30 days of service and (2) all Defendants 16 did not consent to removal. (Id. at 1). In opposition, contrary to their averment in the Notice of 17 Removal, Defendants contend they were not properly served according to the requirements of the 18 California Code of Civil Procedure but are waiving proper service to proceed before this Court. 19 (Doc. 8 at 2). Defendants contend that the summons served by Plaintiff was defective because 20 Plaintiff failed to complete the Judicial Council Form SUM-100 mandated by the California Code 21 of Civil Procedure sections 412.20 and 465. (Id.). Specifically, Defendants point out that 22 Plaintiff did not complete the “Notice to the Person Served” section of the SUM-100 mandatory 23 form. (Id.). As evidence, Defendants attach a copy of a single summons to their opposition. (Id., 24 Exh. A at 5-6). In reply, Plaintiff argues that the notice Defendants received regarding the state 25 court suit satisfied California’s “substantial compliance” requirement. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff further 26 argues Defendants forfeited any objection to the propriety of service by failing to timely move to 27 quash service in state court. (Id.). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts the mandatory portion of the 28 summons cited by Defendants applies only to corporate defendants. (Id.). ] The thirty-day period for removal commences from the date of proper service of process, 2 | not by mere receipt of the complaint without any formal service. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti 3 | Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999)). This Court has jurisdiction to determine whether 4 | service was defective under California law. 28 U.S.C. § 1448. See generally Shah v. Meier 5 | Enters., Inc., 857 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming a court order holding that proper 6 || service was not made until later date, and thus, removal was timely). 7 To determine whether service was proper, the Court requires the service documents 8 | (SUM-100) served upon each of the defendants as well as the proofs of service (POS-010) filed 9 | with the state court.” 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 11 Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall: 12 a. supplement the record with the full state court record, including proofs of 13 service filed with the state court; and 14 b. file copies of the service document served upon each defendant to the extent 15 they contend the document demonstrates that service was defective. 16 M Dated: _ February 6, 2026 law ZA. foareh Zackte 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || 2 The sole attached summons reads “NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Dr. Anand Mehta” on the top of the first page. (Doc. 8, Exh. A at 1). The “Notice to the Person Served” portion on this summons was not completed. 28 | Defendant argues service is defective solely based upon the fact that the this portion of the form was left blank.