Young v. Henderson

Filing 15

ORDER to Show Cause re Removal. Response due by August 5, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. PST. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2016. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALAN YOUNG,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 16-cv-04262-EMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

Docket No. 13, 14
10

Defendants.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

THOMAS M HENDERSON, et al.,

13

In July 2015, Plaintiff Alan Young brought the instant case against Defendants, alleging

14

that Defendants took $53.5 million in partnership funds for their personal use. Docket No. 5-24

15

(Second Amended Complaint) (SAC) at ¶¶ 2-4. Based on these actions, Young brought claims for

16

the breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of

17

good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, demand for books and records of California Limited

18

Liability Companies, violation of California Corporations Code §§ 17701.01 et seq., and an

19

accounting. Id. at 29-42. On July 28, 2016, Defendants Gold Medal, L.P. and Comprehensive

20
21

22
23
24
25

Care of Oakland, L.P. removed the instant case. Docket No. 5 (Not. of Removal). Young then
filed a motion to remand, as well as a motion to shorten time. Docket Nos. 13 (Mot. to Remand);
14 (Mot. to Shorten Time).
Based on the notice of removal and filing, this Court has serious doubts whether removal
was proper. First, it appears that the removal was untimely as service of the complaint occurred
around May 27, 2016, whereas removal did not occur until July 22, 2016. See Docket No. 13-1
(Levine Dec.) at ¶ 5. Second, the notice of removal was filed solely on behalf of Gold Medal and

26

Comprehensive Care, yet there are multiple defendants in this case who had been served and were
27

actively litigating this case, in violation of the unanimous consent requirement. Third, there does
28

1

not appear to be any federal question raised by this case; Young has brought only state causes of

2

action. At best, the only connection to federal law in this case is that Young contends that funds

3

that were supposed to go to creating jobs that would qualify under the federal EB-5 immigrant

4

investor program were instead diverted into commercial real estate in downtown Oakland. See

5

SAC at ¶¶ 4, 65-74. It is not apparent that this diversion of funds can create a federal cause of

6

action.

7
8
9

Gold Medal, L.P. and Comprehensive Care are hereby ordered to show cause why the
Court should not remand this case; their response to this Order shall be filed by Friday, August 5,
2016 at 4:00 p.m. PST. Should the removal be found improper, the Court may impose sanctions.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

Dated: August 2, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2