STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN DOE, 3:24-cv-11491

Defendant John Doe removed a civil action from New Jersey Superior Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction.
The original case involved US Bank Cust for Actlien Holding suing Singh, with the State of New Jersey also being joined due to a possible property interest.
Doe's Notice of Removal did not include the underlying complaint and referenced federal law only in relation to his own anticipated counterclaims against the state court's procedures.
Doe failed to timely pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis, eventually paying after a delay.
Doe also filed a motion to quash a summons and requested to proceed pseudonymously as "John Doe."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal question jurisdiction for removal	No explicit argument; not set forth here	Doe claimed violations of his constitutional rights arising from state procedures	No jurisdiction; removal improper
Validity of Doe’s counterclaims as basis for removal	Not argued; plaintiff silent	Doe argued his federal claims justified removal	Federal claims in counterclaims insufficient
Motion to quash summons issued to State	Not addressed	Doe sought to quash summons to State, citing procedural issues	Motion denied (lacked standing; untimely/moot)
Request to proceed pseudonymously	Not addressed	Doe sought anonymity citing unspecified privacy concerns	Request denied; not exceptional circumstances

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal question removal jurisdiction must be determined from face of the complaint)
Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal question jurisdiction)
Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (counterclaims cannot supply federal question jurisdiction)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal jurisdiction not based on counterclaims)
Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (standard for proceeding anonymously in federal court)