Boschetti -v- O'Blenis

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken RESOLVING MISCELLANEOUS( 35 , 38 ) MOTIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PAUL BOSCHETTI,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

No. C 13-2706 CW
ORDER RESOLVING
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTIONS (Docket
Nos. 35, 38)

v.
DANIEL O’BLENIS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

9
On December 12, 2013, Defendant Daniel Everett, named herein
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

as Daniel O’Blenis, filed an administrative motion seeking
11
clarification of this Court’s pre-filing order against him.
12
Specifically, he sought to clarify whether the pre-filing order,
13
which requires pre-filing review of “[a]ll notices of removal
14
filed by Defendant” pertaining to San Francisco County Superior
15
Court Case No. CUD 12-642905, applies to notices of removal to
16
bankruptcy court.

See Docket No. 23, Pre-Filing Order, at 2.

17
Plaintiff contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
18
decide this motion because there is no case or controversy
19
currently pending before the Court.

However, as the Ninth Circuit

20
has explained, a district court always has “jurisdiction to
21
determine its own jurisdiction.”

Herman Family Revocable Trust v.

22
Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 807 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing United
23
States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991)).
24
Because Defendant seeks clarification of the scope of this Court’s
25
own pre-filing order, the Court has jurisdiction to provide the
26
limited relief that he seeks.
27
28

1

Turning to the merits of Defendant’s motion, the Court finds

2

that the pre-filing order applies to all notices of removal which

3

Defendant files in San Francisco County Superior Court seeking to

4

remove Case No. CUD 12-642905 to federal court.

5

notices of removal to any federal bankruptcy court in this

6

district.

7

further judicial resources would not be wasted on Defendant’s

8

frivolous attempts to use the federal courts in this district to

9

avoid enforcement of a state court judgment against him.

This includes

The Court issued the pre-filing order to ensure that

See

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Docket No. 22, Order Remanding Case and Granting in Part Motion

11

for Sanctions, at 4-6 (describing Defendant’s past abuses of

12

removal process).

13

notices of removal to federal bankruptcy court is not only

14

consistent with the terms of the pre-filing order but also

15

necessary to achieve its basic purpose.

16

Requiring pre-filing review of Defendant’s

Accordingly, Defendant’s administrative motion for

17

clarification (Docket No. 35) is GRANTED.

18

removal that Defendant files in San Francisco County Superior

19

Court seeking to remove Case No. CUD 12-642905 to federal district

20

court or federal bankruptcy court in the Northern District of

21

California shall be subject to pre-filing review.

22

pre-filing order did not refer specifically to notices of removal

23

to bankruptcy court, however, Plaintiff’s request for contempt

24

sanctions based on Defendant’s past notices of removal to

25

bankruptcy court is denied.

1

Any future notice of

Because the

If Defendant seeks to remove this

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff requested sanctions in a letter delivered to the
Court on November 5, 2013 but failed to file this request in the
docket.
2

1

case to bankruptcy court in this district in the future, he may be

2

subject to contempt sanctions.

3
4
5

Defendant’s motion for leave to correct the wording of the
motion for clarification (Docket No. 38) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

2/12/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3