Li v. Mummah

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIANQING LI, 8 Case No. 22-cv-07626 NC Plaintiff, v. ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE 10 TO OSC FROM CROSS- PHILLIP MUMMAH, COMPLAINANT MUMMAH; AND 11 CONSENT/DECLINE TO Defendant and MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 Cross-Complainant, JURISDICTION BY LI AND 13 v. MUMMAH 14 SCOTT A. FLAXMAN, Re: ECF 1 15 Cross-Claim Defendant.

18 Scott A. Flaxman sought to remove the cross-claim filed against him in Santa Clara County Superior Court to this Court. ECF 1, Notice of Removal of Cross-Claim. On December 9, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding Removal, asking Flaxman to explain why the case should not be remanded back to the Superior Court under 28 22 U.S.C. § 1441 and Home Depot, U.S.A. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1745 (2019). ECF 10.

23 A remand order may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a). Flaxman responded with a brief the next day, ECF 11, supplemented by exhibits at ECF 12, 13, and 14, and a second brief on December 12, 2022. ECF 15. Flaxman may not file any additional briefs in response to the OSC without further Court permission.

1 Cross-complainant Phillip Mummah is ordered to respond to the removal and the || Court’s Order to Show Cause by December 20, 2022. In particular, Mummah should || address (1) whether he waives defect in the removal and prefers to litigate the cross-claim || in this federal court, see ECF 15 at pp. 6-7; and (2) whether he favors or opposes severance || of the cross-claim as requested by Flaxman, see ECF 15 at pp. 3-4.

6 Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a) a United States || magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a civil matter upon the consent of “all || parties.” See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (all parties must || consent in order for jurisdiction to vest with the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 10 || 636(c)(1)). Here, Flaxman has consented (ECF 4), but not all parties have consented to the || jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under § 636(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff Li and Cross- || Complainant Mummah are each asked to file the attached form indicating consent/decline || to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge by December 20, 2022.

C 14 The Court awaits these filings before taking any further action on the removal to || federal court by Flaxman.

5 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: December 13, 2022 —=> 20 United States Magistrate fudge