Hollis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DANIEL HOLLIS, Case No. 22-cv-00827-AGT

Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A MORE

TRUIST BANK, DEFINITE STATEMENT

10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 4.

It appears that the defendant, Truist Bank, prematurely removed this case to federal court. The plaintiff, Daniel Hollis, filed a pro se form complaint against Truist in California small-claims court. The complaint included one claim: for breach of contract. As alleged, the breach occurred in June 2019, and Hollis’s damages consisted of emotional distress, legal fees, and consequential damage to his “entire financial life,” which “has come to a halt due to this.” Dkt. 1-1 at 3–4. After being served, Truist searched its records and determined that Hollis didn’t have a Truist account in 2019. Hollis had, however, had a Truist account in 2012, which was closed that year due to suspected fraudulent activity. Also…