Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee v. Bradford

Filing 11

ORDER NOT RELATING CASES. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/28/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2014)

Download PDF
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 12 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE, No. C 13-3564 RS 13 14 15 16 ORDER Plaintiff, v. SYLVESTER BRADFORD, et al., 17 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 18 DARRICK D. STERLING, et al. Plaintiffs 19 20 No. C 14-00827 CW v. 21 22 DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS, et al., 23 24 25 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 26 27 28 The judge presiding over the second of the above-captioned cases has referred it to the undersigned for a determination as to whether it is related to the first, within the meaning of Civil 1 Local Rule 3-12. The court finds that the cases are not so related. The older action, and several even 2 earlier-filed cases related thereto, all represented a state court unlawful detainer proceeding that 3 Sylvester Bradford repeatedly attempted to remove to this court. In remanding those actions for 4 lack of jurisdiction, the Court explained that any affirmative claims Bradford might have against 5 Deutsche Bank or other parties could not support removal jurisdiction. The remand order in Case 6 No. C 13-3564 RS, however, expressly left open the possibility that Bradford could file a separate 7 action in this forum, in the event he genuinely believes he has claims against Deutsche Bank or 8 others, and there is an independent basis for jurisdiction over such claims. 9 Cases are related under Rule 3-12 where they (1) “concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event” and, (2) “[i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different 12 Judges.” Here, although the cases all relate generally to Deutsche Bank’s efforts to foreclose on 13 certain real property, the sole issue implicated by the earlier-filed cases was whether removal 14 jurisdiction existed over a state unlawful detainer proceeding. Neither the merits nor the details of 15 the claims alleged in the presently-pending suit were relevant to that determination, or were 16 evaluated to any degree. Under these circumstances, the overlap in the actions is superficial and 17 does not implicate the efficiency and consistency concerns reassignment under Rule 3-12 is 18 designed to address. Accordingly, there is no basis to find the cases to be related. 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 2/28/14 24 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?