Bank of America, N.A. v. Davis

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/1/2013. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/17/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0064 EMC

LEONARD DAVIS,

12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Per the Court’s order on April 11, 2013, see Docket No. 13 (civil minutes), Plaintiff has

16

submitted evidence as to why the case at bar is moot and should be remanded back to the state

17

superior court. See Docket No. 14 (Crosby declaration). Having considered that evidence, the Court

18

hereby orders Defendant to show cause as to why the case at bar is not moot and should not be

19

remanded. The Court notes that, based on the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, it appears that there

20

was a judgment on Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action in December 2012, see Docket No. 14

21

(Crosby Decl., Ex. 5) (judgment) – i.e., several weeks before Defendant removed the action to

22

federal court and then filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff.

23

The Court further orders counsel for Defendant to show cause as to why she should not be

24

sanctioned for her removal of a state court action that had already reached a final judgment. In

25

addition, counsel shall show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for removing a case over

26

which there does not appear to be subject matter jurisdiction. The Court acknowledges counsel’s

27

claim that the instant action is a “core proceeding” under the Bankruptcy Act, see Docket No. 1

28

1

(Not. of Removal ¶ 4) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)), but counsel has not even identified who is

2

bankrupt or the case number for the bankruptcy proceeding.

3

The response to the order to show cause (which must cover all three issues identified

4

above) shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this order. Defendant and his counsel are

5

advised that, if a timely response is not filed, then this Court shall issue an order (1)

6

remanding the case back to state court and (2) holding counsel in contempt. Counsel may also

7

be subject to other sanctions.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: April 17, 2013

12
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2