Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Vasquez
Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez; Hennepin County; the City of Edina; all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14-14103
- Douglas Micko
- 0:25-cv-03390
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez et al., Magistrate Judge Micko recommends sending the case back to Minnesota state court because defendant Jacklyn Vasquez refused to agree to the move to federal court, meaning the legal requirement that all defendants consent to removal was not met.
The plaintiffs Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota, and the defendants Jacklyn Vasquez, Hennepin County, the City of Edina, and unnamed Edina Police Officers. The case will be returned to Minnesota state court, so the parties will continue litigating there rather than in federal court.
What happened
In Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez; Hennepin County; the City of Edina; all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14-14103, the City of Edina moved the case from Minnesota state court to federal court on August 27, 2025. In its filing, the City admitted that defendant Jacklyn Vasquez had not clearly agreed to the transfer, which raised questions about whether the move to federal court was proper.
Federal law requires that when a case is moved from state court to federal court, all defendants who have been served must agree to the transfer — a principle known as the "rule of unanimity." When the court asked the City of Edina to explain why the case should stay in federal court, the City responded that Vasquez had actively stated she does not consent to removal. Because not all defendants agreed, the federal court concluded it does not have the authority to hear the case.
Magistrate Judge Micko issued this Report and Recommendation on September 17, 2025, recommending that the case be sent back to state court. This recommendation is not a final order; any party who disagrees has 14 days after receiving it to file written objections with the District Court.
The detailed version
This case, Marisa Simonetti and Marisa for Minnesota v. Jacklyn Vasquez; Hennepin County; the City of Edina; all Edina Police Officers involved in Case No. 27-CR-24-14-14103 (Case No. 25-cv-3390 (JWB/DLM)), involves a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko of the District of Minnesota on September 17, 2025.
Background on Removal
The City of Edina filed a Notice of Removal on August 27, 2025, transferring this action from Minnesota state court to federal court. In that notice, the City represented that Hennepin County affirmatively consented to removal, but acknowledged in a footnote that defendant Jacklyn Vasquez had not provided affirmative consent. This acknowledgment prompted the Court to issue a show-cause order directing the City of Edina to explain why the case should not be remanded (sent back) to state court. On September 12, 2025, the City of Edina confirmed by letter that Vasquez does not consent to removal.
Legal Standard — Rule of Unanimity
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a federal court must remand a removed case if a defect makes removal improper. The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of remand. The "rule of unanimity" requires that all defendants join in or consent to removal. While not every defendant must sign the notice of removal itself, each served defendant must provide some timely written indication of actual consent. A non-removing defendant who wishes to consent must either sign the notice or file a timely, unequivocal written consent.
Analysis and Recommendation
Because Vasquez affirmatively declined to consent, the rule of unanimity is not satisfied. As a result, Magistrate Judge Micko concluded that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (the legal authority to hear the case) and recommends remanding the action to state court.
Procedural Next Steps
This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order of the District Court, and is therefore not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. Any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served with the Report, and any opposing party may respond to those objections within 14 days thereafter. All objections and responses must comply with the word and line limits in Local Rule 72.2(c).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.