Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Barbara Rooker Family Trust et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF SUMMARY REMAND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/22/2011. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011)

*E-Filed 7/22/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11-3299 RS
ORDER OF SUMMARY REMAND

v.
BARBARA J. ROOKER FAMILY TRUST,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
This is the third time that “Christopher Jamar [Summers]”, purporting to act as the

19

“Administrator” of the “Office of The Executor,” and appearing in pro se, has attempted to remove

20

this action from Marin Superior Court where it was pending as an unlawful detainer action against

21

him and the Barbara J. Rooker Family Trust. See Wells Fargo v. Barbara Rooker Family Trust, et

22

al., C 10-3503 SBA, and Wells Fargo v. Barbara Rooker Family Trust, et al. C 11-0270 RS. Under

23

28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), when a notice of removal is filed, the court is directed to examine it

24

“promptly” and, “[i]f it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto

25

that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” Here,

26

summary remand is, in fact, appropriate, for the same reasons set out in the orders of summary

27

remand in Case Nos. C 10-3503 SBA and C 11-0270 RS. As explained in more detail in those

28

orders, there is no basis for the federal court to exercise removal jurisdiction over this state court

1

unlawful detainer action, regardless of what affirmative claims defendants may believe they have

2

against Wells Fargo and other related parties, and regardless of the fact that defendants may contend

3

they have defenses to the unlawful detainer action that may implicate issues of federal law. See

4

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-831 (2002)

5

(holding that federal question jurisdiction must be presented by what is or should have been alleged

6

in the complaint and the fact that a federal question may be implicated through matters raised by an

7

answer or in a counterclaim is insufficient).

8
9

While under very limited situations it may sometimes become possible to remove a case that
was previously remanded for lack of jurisdiction, defendants are advised that under no conceivable
circumstances will this unlawful detainer action ever be subject to removal to federal court.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendants are directed not to file any further notices of removal with respect to Marin Superior

12

Court Case No. Civ 1003382. In the event defendants disregard this order, they will be subject to an

13

order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them, including monetary

14

sanctions and a prefiling review order.

15
16

This action is hereby remanded to the Marin Superior Court. Defendant’s application for in
forma pauperis status is denied as moot, and the Clerk shall close this file.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: 7/22/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS MAILED TO:

2
3
4
5

Christopher Jamar Summers
P.O. Box 260
448 Ignacio Blvd
Novato, CA 94949

6
7
8

DATED: 7/22/11
/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3