Terence J. Devine v. Ara Eresian, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE TERENCE J. DEVINE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 2:25-cv-00541-LEW ) ) ARA ERESIAN, JR., ) ) Defendant ) ) RECOMMENDED DECISION TO DISMISS Defendant filed a Notice of Removal seeking to remove to this Court an action captioned In the Matter of: Conklin 2014 Irrevocable Trust, which action is alleged to be pending in the Worcester County Probate and Family Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which governs the removal of state court actions to federal court, provides in relevant part: Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts on the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). The Worcester County Probate and Family Court is a court within the District of Massachusetts, not the District of Maine. The District Court for the District of Maine, therefore, is not a court “for the district and division embracing the place where [the state court matter] is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause within fourteen days (November 12, 2025), as to why the matter should not be dismissed or transferred to the District of Massachusetts. See Howell v. Maine, No. 2:14-cv-00108-NT, 2014 WL 2594129 (D. Me. June 10, 2014) (denying removal and dismissing action where party sought to remove New Jersey state court matter to District Court for the District of Maine).

Although Defendant was granted an extension of time to December 4, 2025, to respond to the Order to Show Cause, Defendant has not filed a response. Defendant, therefore, has failed to show cause as directed. Because Defendant has failed to show cause, because I discern no basis for Defendant to remove the matter to this Court, and because Defendant has failed to provide sufficient information to support his contention that the matter is within the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction, I recommend that the Court dismiss the matter.

NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

/s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.