Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ward E Webster et al
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal REMANDING Action to California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino: (see document image for further details). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (ad)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
EDCV 13-01043 JGB (OP)
August 7, 2013
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ward E. Webster, et al.
Present: The Honorable
JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney(s) Present for
Minute Order REMANDING Action to California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino
On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) filed a
complaint for unlawful detainer ("Complaint") against Defendant Ward E. Webster ("Webster")
and fictitious defendants in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
(Not. of Removal at 18, Doc. No. 1.) The action involves real property at 5005 Madison Street,
Chino, California 91710. (Compl. ¶ 1.) On June 11, 2013, Defendant Webster removed the
action to this Court. (Id. at 2.)
This is the second time Defendant has attempted to remove this action. See Federal
National Mortgage Association v. Ward E. Webster, No. 5:13-cv-00668-JGB(OP) (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 11, 2013). Defendant’s prior removal was remanded back to state court due to lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (finding that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on
the basis of federal question, Civil Rights removal, and federal party.)
Defendant’s instant second attempt to remove the same unlawful detainer action
involving the same property fails to allege any new basis for removal. Parties may not remove
an action two or more times on the same basis. Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of
Calif., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a district court lacked jurisdiction where a
defendant's second removal petition was based on the same ground as the prior removal);
Homestead Ins. Co., Inc. v. Casden, 234 Fed. Appx. 434 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). For the reasons
outlined in the Court's prior order on May 21, 2013, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this unlawful detainer action. (See Case No. 13-0668, Doc. No. 6.)
The Court cautions Defendant that sanctions may be imposed if Defendant attempts to
remove this action to this Court again without alleging a proper basis for jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Quantum Servicing Corp. v. Castaneda, No. C-11-2890 EMC, 2011 WL 3809926, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (cautioning pro se defendant who removed an unlawful detainer action that
"should she or the other defendants in the case attempt a removal a second time, they risk being
sanctioned."); SD Coastline v. Reyes, No. 10-1824, 2010 WL 4009557, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12,
2010) (cautioning pro se defendant who removed an unlawful detainer action two times that
"[a]ny further removals in violation of [the order remanding the action] are punishable by
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of
California, San Bernardino County.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?