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)

Download PDF
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

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?