Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee v. Bradford

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/9/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2013)

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,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

No. C 13-3564 RS
ORDER REMANDING ACTION

v.
SYLVESTER BRADFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

18
19

This is now at least the fourth time defendant Sylvester Bradford, aka John Robinson, has

20

removed this unlawful detainer action from Alameda County Superior Court. See Case Nos. 12-

21

4971 RS, 12-1077 RS, and 13-03020 RS.1 As explained in each prior order of remand, this court

22

lacks jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer proceedings. The most recent remand order expressly

23

warned Bradford that “[a]ny further removal attempt will be deemed a knowing and deliberate

24

violation of this order and will expose Bradford to contempt of court penalties.” Given that this

25
26
27
28

1

While more than one state court case number appears in the record, there is no apparent dispute
that all the matters relate to the same basic attempt by the plaintiff to obtain possession of the
subject real property. Additionally, it appears there may have been at least one earlier related
removal attempt by Bradford. See Case No. 12-0744 CRB.

1

removal is legally frivolous for reasons previously explained, and that it was undertaken in direct

2

violation of an express court order, this action is hereby remanded to Alameda County Superior

3

Court.

4

Bradford’s current removal notice complains that the prior remand orders have denied him

5

his right to bring claims in federal court. Specifically, Bradford asserts that he intends to file a

6

“case/complaint” against Deutsche Bank and that the prior orders have somehow prevented him

7

from doing so. Bradford is mistaken. Nothing in any of the prior orders prohibits Bradford from

8

filing a complaint in federal court against Deutsche Bank or any other defendant. If Bradford

9

genuinely believes he has claims against Deutsche Bank, and that there is either federal question or
diversity jurisdiction to bring those claims in federal court, he may file a complaint at any time.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Such claims theoretically could relate to the same real property and loan transaction that underlies

12

the unlawful detainer. All Bradford is legally prohibited from doing is continuing to attempt to

13

remove the unlawful detainer action to this court. There simply is no jurisdiction to hear the

14

unlawful detainer case here, regardless of whether Bradford may have claims against Deutsche Bank

15

or others relating to the same property and loan transaction. Repeatedly filing notices of removal

16

will not change that fundamental fact.

17

In the event Bradford does file a separate action in this Court asserting affirmative claims

18

against Deutsche Bank, it will be randomly assigned to a judicial officer. Further attempts to

19

remove the unlawful detainer will continue to subject Bradford to penalties for violating express

20

court orders.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: 8/9/13

25

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

2
3
4

Sylvester Bradford
6600 Brann Street
Oakland, CA 94605

5
6

DATED: 8/9/13

7
8

/s/ Chambers Staff

9

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

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