NGA Investment, LLC v. Beronilla et al

Filing 10

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 15, 2014. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NGA INVESTMENT, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

REUBEN BERONILLA and
MARIA V. BERONILLA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02227-PSG
ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
(Re: Docket Nos. 7 and 9)

After a repeated frivolous attempt to remove an unlawful detainer action from state court to

17
18

federal court, this court denied Defendants Reuben and Maria V. Beronilla’s application to proceed

19

in forma pauperis. 1 When the Beronillas failed to pay the requisite filing fee, the court ordered the

20

case remanded to state court. 2 Within that order, the court also ordered the Beronillas to show

21
22
23
24
25

1

See Docket No. 7 (“Because Defendants Reuben Beronilla and Maria V. Beronilla’s repeated1
attempt to remove their unlawful detainer case from state court is frivolous,2 their petition to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Defendants shall pay the filing fee within seven days or the
case will be remanded to state court and the federal case closed.”).
2

26
27
28

See Docket No. 9 at 1 (“The docket reflects the Beronillas’ failure to pay the filing fee to initiate
this case or otherwise respond with a legitimate basis for this court to assert jurisdiction over NGA
Investment, LLC’s unlawful detainer action.”). The court ordered the case remanded and not
reassigned to a district judge with a report and recommendation, because the court possessed the
parties’ consent to adjudicate the state court unlawful detainer action. See
Case No. 5:14-cv-01357-PSG, Docket Nos. 4 and 8.
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-02227-PSG
ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

cause why sanctions were not warranted. 3 The docket reflects the Beronillas have not responded to

2

the order to show cause as to why sanctions shall not issue. The Beronillas instead responded by

3

removing their case, for a fourth time, to federal court – just under four hours after their case had

4

been remanded to the state court. 4 Yesterday, Judge Lloyd reassigned that case to a district judge

5
6
7
8
9

with the report and recommendation that Plaintiff NGA Investment, LLC’s motions to remand and
for sanctions be granted. 5 The court agrees with Judge Lloyd that, at a minimum, a pre-filing order
is warranted because the Beronillas have demonstrated their capacity for vexatious litigation. 6 The
undersigned will leave the contours of any ultimate sanction to the district judge.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
3

11
12
13
14
15

See Docket No. 9 (“Because the Beronillas removed their case for a third time without
justification, despite District Judge Beth Freeman’s prior admonition against such a frivolous
filing, the Beronillas shall show cause in writing within fourteen days why sanctions shall not
issue.”); see also Case No 5:14-cv-01842-BLF, Docket No. 7 at 1 (“Defendants are advised,
pursuant to the Report, that any future attempt to remove this case to federal court, having already
tried twice to do so unsuccessfully, may result in sanctions.”).
4

Compare Case No. 5:14-cv-02227-PSG, Docket No. 9 (order remanding case at 10:11 AM on
May 28, 2014), with Case No. 5:14-cv-02457-BLF-HRL, Docket No. 1 (notice of removal at
2:05 PM on May 28, 2014).

16

5

See Case No. 5:14-cv-02457-BLF-HRL, Docket No. 9.

17

6

See id. at 8.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that defendants are vexatious litigants and that the
issuance of a pre-filing order, while drastic, is warranted.
Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court
ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge (1) grant plaintiff’s motion for remand to
the Santa Clara County Superior Court; (2) grant plaintiff’s motion for sanctions; and (3)
issue a pre-filing order instructing the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further removal
filings pertaining to Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 114CV261245, unless
defendants obtain and present a prior order from a judge of this district allowing them to
file the removal papers.
The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the pre-filing order provide as follows:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that before filing any further notices of removal of Santa
Clara County Superior Court case number 114CV261245, Reuben Beronilla and Maria V.
Beronilla must first apply to the court for, and obtain from the court, an order authorizing
them to do so. They must attach the following documents to any such application: (1) a
copy of Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation issued in this case, (2) a copy of this
order, and (3) a copy of the proposed filing. The Clerk of the Court shall not accept for
filing any further notices of removal of Santa Clara County Superior Court case number
114CV261245, unless defendants obtain and present a prior order from a judge of this
district allowing them to file the removal papers.”
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-02227-PSG
ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE