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)

Download PDF
*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

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?