Pasha et al v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al

Filing 43

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LACK OF SERVICE ON QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, AND DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. If the Pashas want to pursue claims against Quality, they must present proof of service of the complaint in compliance with FRCP 4, by 7/25/2017. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARIF PASHA, et al., Plaintiffs, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01643 NC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LACK OF SERVICE ON QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, AND DIVERSITY JURISDICTION Defendants. 15 16 17 The Court has no record that plaintiffs Arif and Mahjabeen Pasha ever served 18 defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation with the original complaint or the amended 19 complaint. If the Pashas want to pursue claims against Quality, they must present to the 20 Court proof by July 25, 2017, that Quality was served with the complaint in compliance 21 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served 22 within 90 days of a complaint being filed, the Court must dismiss the action against that 23 defendant, absent an extension or good cause shown to justify the failure. In addition, the 24 Court notes that the Pashas did not appear for the July 5, 2017, case management 25 conference, and have not responded to other orders. The Court admonishes the Pashas that 26 it will dismiss their case for failure to prosecute if they do not participate in the 27 proceedings they brought before the Court. 28 The Court also notes that removing defendant JPMorgan Chase did not obtain the Case No. 17-cv-01643 NC consent of Quality to remove the case on the purported ground that Quality was merely a 2 nominal defendant. Trustees are usually nominal defendants. Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 3 N.A., 929 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2013). “[F]ederal court[s] must disregard 4 nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to 5 the controversy.” Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation 6 omitted). “However, courts have found that trustees are more than nominal defendants 7 where the complaint includes substantive allegations and asserts claims for money 8 damages against the trustee.” Perez, 929 F. Supp. 2d at 1002. Here, the complaint alleges 9 substantive claims against Quality under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights. 10 Defendants must, in a filing of 5 pages or less, explain to the Court why Quality is a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 nominal defendant; and if Quality is a California corporation, why the Court should not 12 remand this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court does not 13 desire a document from each defendant on this topic. This document must be filed with 14 the Court by July 25, 2017. 15 Finally, the Court reminds the Pashas that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San 16 Jose Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se 17 litigants in federal civil cases. The Pashas are encouraged to use the Program’s services. 18 The Federal Pro Se Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in basis. The 19 Federal Pro Se Program is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States 20 Courthouse (Monday to Thursday 1:00 - 4:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), and 21 The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA 22 (Monday to Thursday 9:00 am - 12:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling 23 (408) 297-1480. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: July 18, 2017 28 Case No. 17-cv-01643 NC _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?