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)
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?