Filed: Jun. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2013
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL 21 DAYS TO (1) SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND (2) SUBMIT STATE COURT DOCUMENTS MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. On May 20, 2013, Defendant Harold D. Plummer removed this case from the 53rd District Court to this Court (Dkt. 1). On May 30, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Dkt. 3) requiring Defendant to (i) show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jur
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL 21 DAYS TO (1) SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND (2) SUBMIT STATE COURT DOCUMENTS MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. On May 20, 2013, Defendant Harold D. Plummer removed this case from the 53rd District Court to this Court (Dkt. 1). On May 30, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Dkt. 3) requiring Defendant to (i) show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter juri..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL 21 DAYS TO (1) SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND (2) SUBMIT STATE COURT DOCUMENTS
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
On May 20, 2013, Defendant Harold D. Plummer removed this case from the 53rd District Court to this Court (Dkt. 1). On May 30, 2013, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Dkt. 3) requiring Defendant to (i) show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and (ii) submit all state court documents, which were not attached to the notice of removal, on or before June 10, 2013. On June 10, 2013, Defendant submitted a memorandum (Dkt. 6) seeking a stay of the proceedings for 60 days, to "allow [Defendant] time to show cause regarding jurisdiction, and to submit state court documents." The memorandum states that Defendant's time has been occupied by taking care of his ill son. Id.
The Court construes Defendant's memorandum, which was filed before the expiration of the original deadline, as a motion for extension of time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) ("the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires . . . ."). Defendant alleges that his "efforts have been stalled" due to taking care of his son, who is "very sick at this time;" the Court also notes that Defendant is proceeding pro se. The Court concludes that there is sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time. See, e.g., Evans v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., No. 05-70861, 2005 WL 1684142, at *3 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2005) ("Considering plaintiff's pro se status, the circumstances underlying his filing of his motion for an extension of time to file a response, and the early stage of this lawsuit, the court finds good cause for granting plaintiff an extension of time to file a response under Rule 6(b)(1) . . . .").
The Court further concludes, however, that an extension of 60 days is not required; instead, the Court affords Defendant a 21-day extension of time. Therefore, Defendant shall show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and shall submit state court documents, on or before July 8, 2013. If Defendant does not timely and properly demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).1
SO ORDERED.
