jain.com
The Analysis · Companies · People · Methodology

Court: snap removal improper, case remanded to state court

Company: CleanSpark

This claim was withdrawn on October 27, 2026. The attributed quote appears verbatim, and the source supports the improper snap removal by Schultz, CleanSpark's forum-defendant status, the remand to Case No. A-23-866172-C, and the denial of the other motions as moot, but it never says any of ECF Nos. 15, 35, or 38 is a motion to dismiss, so the claim's final sentence is unsupported.

How this was decided: Evidence review against the cited source. The claim is preserved below exactly as it was originally published, so the record shows what was asserted as well as what became of it.

Subject kind
other
Statement date
2023-06-07
Current status
withdrawn

The claim, verbatim

The court held that defendant S. Matthew Schultz's removal of the derivative suit to federal court was improper. Removal came before any defendant was served, and CleanSpark is a forum defendant. The court remanded the case to the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (Case No. A-23-866172-C) and denied the other motions as moot, without prejudice to refiling in state court. Those denied motions included the motion to dismiss.

Source (primary)

Iraci v. Bradford — Entry #46: ORDER denying 35 Motion to Dismiss (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-10-27)Live source ↗

Quote: “Applying this interpretation, I conclude that removal of this action was premature because it occurred before any defendant had been served. So I remand this case back to the state court.”

How we checked this

This claim has not yet been checked assertion-by-assertion against its source. It carries a cited source and quote, but the deeper check has not run. When it does, the result appears here whatever it says.

Additional evidence

confirms Iraci v. Bradford — Entry #46: ORDER denying 35 Motion to Dismiss

Quote: “Applying this interpretation, I conclude that removal of this action was premature because it occurred before any defendant had been served. So I remand this case back to the state court.”

View cached copy (2026-10-27)Live source ↗

Record of changes

October 27, 2026 — verified
Automated extraction from the cited source. Recorded automatically from the cited source when it was published, then queued for evidence review.
October 27, 2026 — withdrawn
Evidence review against the cited source. The attributed quote appears verbatim, and the source supports the improper snap removal by Schultz, CleanSpark's forum-defendant status, the remand to Case No. A-23-866172-C, and the denial of the other motions as moot, but it never says any of ECF Nos. 15, 35, or 38 is a motion to dismiss, so the claim's final sentence is unsupported.