Federal National Mortgage Association v. Areguin

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh adopting Report and Recommendations as to 4 Report and Recommendations.; denying 6 Motion to Remand (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFELIA AREGUIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 14-CV-03248-LHK
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE
REMANDED, AND DENYING
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) to remand the instant case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The Report was filed

19
and served on July 18, 2014. See ECF No. 4. The time for objections has passed, and Defendants
20
have not filed any. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court finds Magistrate
21

Judge Grewal’s Report accurate, comprehensive, and well-reasoned and concurs with the Report’s

22
conclusion that the case should be remanded. ECF No. 4 at 3. Accordingly, the Court adopts the
23
Report in its entirety, and thus remands this case to the Monterey County Superior Court.
24
25

On September 11, 2014, Federal National Mortgage Association (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion
to remand and for sanctions. ECF No. 6. The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for decision

26
without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and hereby vacates the motion hearing
27
set for December 18, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.
28

1
Case No.: 14-CV-03248
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3

Having adopted Judge Grewal’s Report as to the issue of whether the case should be
remanded, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand as moot.
Regarding Plaintiff’s sanctions request, Plaintiff requests that the Court sanction

4

Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for filing “a frivolous notice of

5

removal.” Id. at 11. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants’ notice of removal was an “abuse of

6

Court processes to continue to have a free ride in her possession of the [subject property] and stall a

7

lawful eviction action.” Id. Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for

8

sanctions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 permits the imposition of any “appropriate sanction” on

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

any party that makes a pleading, written motion, or other filing that is, inter alia, frivolous, legally

11

unreasonable, or brought for an improper purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c); Conn v. Borjorquez, 967

12

F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘In determining whether to award attorneys’ fees in cases

13

involving improper removal by a pro se defendant, courts accord significant weight to the

14

defendant’s lack of representation.’” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lombera, No. 12-CV-03496-LHK,

15

2012 WL 4370362, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hunt, No.

16

C10–04965JCS, 2011 WL 445801 at *5 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2011)).

17

The Court declines to impose sanctions on Defendants. The Court accords Defendants, who

18

are proceeding pro se, the benefit of the doubt that they did not realize their notice of removal was

19

ultimately meritless. See Hunt, 2011 WL 445801, at *5. Moreover, according to Plaintiff this is the

20

first notice of removal Defendants have filed in Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. ECF No. 6, at

21

6-8. Defendants are hereby on notice that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unlawful

22

detainer action, and therefore a second notice of removal may be sanctionable. However, based on

23

the record in this case and Defendants’ pro se status, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion for

24

sanctions.

25

The case is hereby remanded to the Monterey County Superior Court.

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 14-CV-03248
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: December 16, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
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
Case No.: 14-CV-03248
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS