2Taitz's motion were successful, it would arguably not effect a remand of the case on behalf of the other Plaintiffs to the extent her claims differ from the other Plaintiffs.3.
Ms. Taitz has already filed one motion to remand, see Docket no. 11, and defendantshave opposed that motion. See Docket nos. 14 (opposition of Secretary of State) and 19(opposition of MDEC).4.
Ms. Taitz contends that all of the named defendants have not joined in the notice of removal,
requiring remand. However, neither the applicable statutes nor the relevant caselaw require all named defendants to join in a notice of removal. The statute actually provides
that only “defendants
who have been properly joined and served
must join in or consent to
the removal of the action.”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).5.
Setting aside the deficiency of the lack of consent of the other Plaintiffs, and the fact that
this is Ms. Taitz’s second motion to remand , this
motion is not supported by anyauthenticated, admissible evidence demonstrating (a) who was served, (b) what documentswere served, (c) how service was effected, (d) when service occurred, or (e) any other detailsrelating to service of process. (No return of service appears either in this court's docket or thedocket of the state court, either.) Instead, the present motion consists of some disorganizedargument
and the recitation of some facts, as well as a group of unauthenticated exhibits, butno supporting affidavit of any kind.
In her motion Ms. Taitz asserts that "For remand [sic] to be valid, all defendant [sic] have toconsent to remand [sic]." Motion, Docket no. 20, at p. 2.
Ms. Taitz’s entire argument was lifted
from footnote 15, page 7 of an online guidefrom Deborah Pearce Reggio entitled
Removal And Remand: A Guide To Navigating BetweenThe State and Federal Courts.
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 21 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 6