Potter v. Clear Recon Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NYLA F. POTTER et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01173-LK Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE 12 v. OF REMOVAL 13 CLEAR RECON CORP. et al, 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice of Removal. Dkt. No. 34.

17 Plaintiffs seek to remove a case currently pending in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, captioned Andy Investments, LLC v. Nyla Fern Potter et al., Cause No. 24-2-21833-5 SEA. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ removal is procedurally defective.

20 The proper procedure for removal of a case from state court to federal court “requires the party seeking removal to file notice of removal in a newly instituted case in federal court.” Mlotek v. Mlotek, No. 10-CV-432, 2011 WL 441526, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2011) (emphasis added); Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Sch. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Ass’n Ins. Co., No. 8:14-CV-811- T-23EAJ, 2014 WL 12705576, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2014) (similar).

1 Plaintiffs may not remove a case into a previously existing federal case. Of course, a removing party may note that a newly removed matter is related to another currently pending action and seek a court order consolidating the two actions, but that does not excuse the obligation to initiate a new action. See e.g., Mlotek, 2011 WL 441526, at *1 ; Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Sch, 2014 WL 12705576, at *1.

6 Moreover, the removal notice does not attach a copy of the state court complaint as required by Local Civil Rule 101(b). See generally Dkt. No. 34-1.

8 The Court thus STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Notice of Removal. Dkt. No. 34. Future violations of applicable law may result in sanctions.

11 Dated this 1st day of October, 2024.

12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge