ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LACK OF SERVICE ON QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, AND DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

The Court has no record that plaintiffs Arif and Mahjabeen Pasha ever served defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation with the original complaint or the amended complaint. If the Pashas want to pursue claims against Quality, they must present to the Court proof by July 25, 2017, that Quality was served with the complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Under Rule 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days of a complaint being filed, the Court must dismiss the action against that defendant, absent an extension or good cause shown to justify the failure. In addition, the Court notes that the Pashas did not appear for the July 5, 2017, case management conference, and have not responded to other orders. The Court admonishes the Pashas that it will dismiss their case for failure to prosecute if they do not participate in the proceedings they brought before the Court.

The Court also notes that removing defendant JPMorgan Chase did not obtain the consent of Quality to remove the case on the purported ground that Quality was merely a nominal defendant. Trustees are usually nominal defendants. Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 929 F.Supp.2d 988, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2013). "[F]ederal court[s] must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy." Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). "However, courts have found that trustees are more than nominal defendants where the complaint includes substantive allegations and asserts claims for money damages against the trustee." Perez, 929 F. Supp. 2d at 1002. Here, the complaint alleges substantive claims against Quality under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights. Defendants must, in a filing of 5 pages or less, explain to the Court why Quality is a nominal defendant; and if Quality is a California corporation, why the Court should not remand this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court does not desire a document from each defendant on this topic. This document must be filed with the Court by July 25, 2017.

Finally, the Court reminds the Pashas that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The Pashas are encouraged to use the Program's services. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in basis. The Federal Pro Se Program is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse (Monday to Thursday 1:00 - 4:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), and The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to Thursday 9:00 am - 12:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling (408) 297-1480.

IT IS SO ORDERED.