Tracy

Tracy v. 1835 Columbia Street LP

Bad Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 1, 20233:23-cv-02066California527 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARK CHRISTOPHER TRACY, Case No.: 23-cv-2066-RSH-AHG

Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v. 1835 COLUMBIA STREET LP, Defendant. 16 On November 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering the Parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. The Court’s OSC noted that Defendant filed a notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction. The Court explained that it was unable to determine the Parties’ respective states of citizenship based on the record before it and that the forum defendant rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) may apply.1 On November 30, 2023, Defendant filed a response to the Court’s OSC. ECF No. 4. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a response. 25

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) provides that an action “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in 28 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.