Sterling et al v. Deutsch Bank Americas

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ON 20 MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF STATE COURT ACTION (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 DARRICK D. STERLING, SPIRIT AND SELF MINISTRIES, SYLVESTER BRADFORD, and YVONNE TIJERINO, Plaintiffs, No. C 14-00827 CW ORDER ON MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF STATE COURT ACTION (Docket No. 20) v. DEUTSCH BANK AMERICAS, MARILYN Y. RODRIQUEZ, SPRE, INC., GMAC MORTGAGE, CYPREXX CORPORATION, WOLF FIRM, KAYO MANSON-TOMKIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF, and ALAMEDA COUNTY COUNSEL, Defendants. ________________________________/ 12 13 On March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs Darrick D. Sterling and 14 Sylvester Bradford filed a motion for removal of Deutsche Bank 15 Trust Company Americas v. Bradford et al., case number 11-594238, 16 filed in Alameda superior court on September 8, 2011. 17 U.S.C. § 1446, a defendant in a state court civil action may 18 remove the action to federal court within thirty days after the 19 service of summons. 20 that permits them to file a motion to combine an unrelated state 21 court action, where at least one Plaintiff is a defendant, with 22 this federal case, where Plaintiffs have asserted several 23 affirmative claims under federal law. 24 procedurally improper and therefore must be denied. 25 plaintiff wishes to remove a civil state court action to which he 26 is a defendant, he must timely file a notice of removal according 27 to the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1446, which would initiate a 28 separate federal court action. Under 28 However, Plaintiffs identify no authority Plaintiffs’ motion is If a Removal of a state court case 1 filed in 2011, however, is unlikely to be timely. 2 § 1446. 3 See 28 U.S.C. In any event, Plaintiffs do not appear to have any legal 4 basis for removing the above-referenced state court action. 5 According to the documents filed by Plaintiffs, the state court 6 action is an unlawful detainer action. 7 question must appear on the face of the complaint,” and unlawful 8 detainer is a matter of state law, this Court is unlikely to have 9 jurisdiction to hear the state court action. Because the “federal Caterpillar Inc. v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Arriola, 11 2012 WL 1996954, *2-3 (N.D. Cal.). 12 made at least five attempts to remove this state court action. 13 Each time the case was remanded, and the latest attempt was made 14 in direct contravention of the court’s warning that any further 15 attempt would be “legally frivolous” and might “expose Bradford to 16 contempt of court penalties.” 17 Americas as Trustee v. Bradford, Case No. 13-3564 RS, Docket Nos. 18 1, 8. 19 to remove this state court action. 20 21 22 Additionally, Bradford has See Deutsche Bank Trust Company Accordingly, Plaintiffs are advised to cease their attempts IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 5/23/2014 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?