Sidney Huddleston et al v. Argent Mortgage Company LLC et al

Filing 26

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 1/13/2014, the Court ordered plaintiff Sidney Huddleston to show cause on or before 2/17/2014, why he should not be sanctioned for vio lating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 19 . As of 2/21/2014, plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's order to show cause. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions for violation of Rule 11 are warranted, and therefore sanctions plaintiff Sidney Huddleston in the amount of $500.00. Plaintiff Huddleston shall pay these sanctions to the Clerk of this Court on or before 3/24/2014. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-07641-CAS(CWx)

Title

SIDNEY HUDDLESTON ET AL. V. ARGENT MORTGAGE
COMPANY LLC ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 21, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE

On October 16, 2013, plaintiffs Sidney Huddleston and Tina Cole, proceeding pro
se, filed this action against defendants Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Park Place Securities, Inc., JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration System, NBG Properties, LLC
(“NBG”), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive. Plaintiffs assert a single claim for quiet
title. On October 23, 2013, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs failed to
respond. On November 20, 2013, the Court dismissed this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
On January 13, 2014, the Court ordered plaintiff Sidney Huddleston to show cause
on or before February 17, 2014, why he should not be sanctioned for violating Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In particular, Huddleston signed and filed a complaint
stating that “[t]his court has subject-matter jurisdiction,” Compl. ¶ 105. However, as
discussed in this Court’s previous order dismissing this action, this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 12. Furthermore, a review of the orders issued by the
other courts in this district repeatedly remanding related unlawful detainer actions shows
that Huddleston was on notice that the federal courts in the Central District of California
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this eviction dispute. See NBG Properties, LLC v.
Huddleston, et al., 2:13-cv-2817-FMO-VBK, dkt. 6, at 2 (“Here, the court’s review of the
Notice of Removal and the attached Complaint make it clear that this court has neither
federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over the instant matter.”); NBG Properties,
LLC v. Huddleston, et al., 2:13-cv-04080-JFW-AGR, dkt. 6, at 2 (“[T]his Court lacks
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-07641-CAS(CWx)

Date

February 21, 2014

Title

SIDNEY HUDDLESTON ET AL. V. ARGENT MORTGAGE
COMPANY LLC ET AL.

subject matter jurisdiction over this action.”); NBG Properties, LLC v. Huddleston, et al.,
2:13-cv-6341-FMO-E, dkt. 8, at 1 (“On August 29, 2013, Huddleston filed another
Notice of Removal, attempting to remove the identical action that was remanded on May
28, 2013. Accordingly, the court will remand this improperly removed action for the
reasons set forth in the Court’s Order of May 28, 2013.” (citations omitted)).
As of February 21, 2014, plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order to
show cause. Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions for violation of Rule 11 are
warranted, and therefore sanctions plaintiff Sidney Huddleston in the amount of five
hundred dollars ($500.00). See Local Rule 7-12 (failure to respond deemed consent);
United States v. Thompson, 2003 WL 23112782, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2003) (“While
this court is reluctant to impose monetary sanctions on a pro se litigant, the court believes
that this sanction is necessary to deter [the litigant] from filing such thoroughly meritless
pleadings and also to deter others from emulating litigation tactics which serve only to
waste precious public resources.”). Plaintiff Huddleston shall pay these sanctions to the
Clerk of this Court on or before March 24, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

cc:

:

00

CMJ

Fiscal

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2