Russell v. Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma

Filing 5

ORDER to the Clerk's Office to Open a New Case with 3 Notice (Other) filed by Derek Russell as the initiating document. Order to Derek Russell to pay the filing fee in the new case on or before April 24, 2015. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 4/7/2015. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DEREK RUSSELL,

7

Case No. 15-cv-01355-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER TO OPEN A NEW CASE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 3

9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

12
13

On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff Derek Russell filed both a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and a

14

Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 3) in an apparent attempt to remove a traffic citation from state court

15

and to file a lawsuit alleging federal claims against Superior Court of California, County of

16

Sonoma. Both initiating documents were improperly filed in the above-captioned case, as only

17

one initiating document may be filed per case. The filing fee of $400.00 paid by Mr. Russell on

18

March 24, 2015 applies to the Complaint, not the Notice of Removal in the state court case.

19

Therefore, the Court orders the Clerk’s Office to open a new case with the Notice of

20

Removal (Dkt. No. 3) as the initiating document, and assign the case to the undersigned. The

21

Court notes that, upon review, Mr. Russell has impermissibly removed his traffic citation from

22

state court, because a party cannot remove a case based on a defense— in this case, the Fair Debt

23

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393

24

(1987) (“[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . , even

25

if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . .”).1 As a result, the new case will

26
1

27
28

Additionally, Mr. Russell erroneously cites 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) as a basis for removal, which is
removal based on diversity of citizenship. Not only is the citizenship of the parties not diverse, but
Mr. Russell is a citizen of California, and, as a defendant in the state court action, is not permitted
to remove the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (case

1

ultimately be remanded to state court.

2

If Mr. Russell, nevertheless, wishes to remove the traffic citation matter to federal court, he

3

is ordered to pay the filing fee of $400.00 on or before April 24, 2015 for the case opened with the

4

Notice of Removal. Failure to pay the filing fee by that date will result in the dismissal of the

5

action. Should Mr. Russell decide that he no longer wishes to pursue the action initiated by the

6

Notice of Removal, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal once a case number is assigned,

7

which will relieve him of his obligation to pay the additional $400.00 filing fee.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2015
________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

with diversity of citizenship “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined
and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”)
2