Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLYMPIA FUNDING, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BEVERLY HILLS ESTATES FUNDING, INC et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C07-1402 MHP

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED

This action was removed pursuant to a “Notice of Removal” filed on March 9, 2007, by

defendant Richard Fresquez. There are seven defendants named in the action, yet the removing

defendant has not joined any of them nor indicated whether any of them have been served and, if so, 

what their respective statuses are with regard to joining in the removal.

In interpreting 28 U.S.C. section 1441, courts have long held that all defendants must join in

the removal. Chicago, R.I. & P.F. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (1900); Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798

F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, removal statutes are strictly construed and doubts

should be resolved in favor of remand. The burden is on the removing defendant to establish

removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); 

California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynergy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S.

974 (2005). 

Removal jurisprudence is riddled with traps waiting to ensnare the unwary, particularly

where there are multiple defendants. Questions such as the time within which to remove, when later

Case 3:07-cv-01402-MHP Document 6 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

served defendants must remove or join the removal, which defendants must remove, abound; and

these are only a sampling.

In this case, another question is raised: where a complaint alleges a removable federal

question claim and nonremovable claims can a defendant named only in the nonremovable claims

file for removal? And, must that defendant join in a removal application made by defendants on the

removable claims, if they seek to remove?

There are serious questions as to the effectiveness of the removal effort here and defendant

Fresquez must answer them. Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the date of this order defendant

Fresquez must submit a memorandum not to exceed ten (10) pages and a declaration, the former

addressing the issue of whether a defendant on a nonremovable claim or claims may remove and the

latter setting forth the status of the remaining defendants including whether they have been served

and, if so, when they were served. Plaintiff shall file its response not to exceed ten (10) pages within

ten (10) days of the filing of defendant’s submission. At that time the matter will be deemed 

submitted.

This order is styled as on order to cause why this action should not be remanded. If

defendant Fresquez, who has the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction fails to carry his

burden, this action will be remanded to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 14, 2007 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-01402-MHP Document 6 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2