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)

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