Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith

Background

The opinion concerns several federal cases arising from the same state-court foreclosure proceeding. Wells Fargo owns Smith’s mortgage and foreclosed on the property in 2019. During the foreclosure proceedings, Smith conveyed a four-percent interest in the property to her attorney, Russell Robinson. The parties later settled the state-court litigation, and in May 2022 the state court entered a stipulated judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor that gave the defendants an opportunity to purchase the property. After they could not repurchase it, Wells Fargo sought to enforce the stipulation in state court.

Successive Removals

Robinson removed the state-court case to federal court four times, according to the opinion’s discussion of the related cases, and Smith separately removed it once. Robinson’s first removal asserted that the state-court judgment would violate due-process and equal-protection rights. The federal court remanded that case because Wells Fargo’s complaint alleged only state-law claims and did not present a federal question.

Robinson removed the case again when the state court was scheduled to consider his request to set aside the judgment. The federal court again remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and issued an order requiring Robinson to explain why a vexatious-litigant order should not be entered. Robinson responded, but later removals followed. Smith’s removal asserted that Wells Fargo’s debt reporting or collection activity violated the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The court remanded that case after finding that Smith had not shown a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Robinson later removed the case again, invoking due process, equal protection, and the federal debt-collection statute; the court again remanded it.

Vexatious-Litigant Analysis

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s four requirements for a pre-filing order against a vexatious litigant. The person must receive notice and an opportunity to oppose the order; the court must create an adequate record of the relevant cases and motions; it must make substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment; and the restriction must be narrowly tailored.

The court found that Robinson had received notice and an opportunity to respond through the earlier order to show cause. It found an adequate record based on the four removals, the related motion practice, and Robinson’s appeal of a remand order. The court also found that Robinson had repeatedly asserted the same unsuccessful jurisdictional arguments despite earlier explanations of the requirements for federal-question jurisdiction. Based on the timing of the removals, the court stated that Robinson’s apparent motive was to delay state-court proceedings. It also found that the filings and appeal had burdened Wells Fargo, the state court, the federal court, and the Court of Appeals.

The court noted that Robinson was representing himself but had been an attorney until his disbarment in 2021. It concluded that no sanction short of a pre-filing order was sufficient to deter the conduct and protect the courts and Wells Fargo.

Ruling

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley declared Russell Robinson a vexatious litigant. Before filing any further notice of removal of the state-court case originally filed in Alameda County Superior Court, Robinson must file a motion seeking permission to file the removal notice. The motion must include copies of the prior remand orders, the vexatious-litigant order, and the proposed filing. The Clerk of Court must refuse any further removal notice unless it is accompanied by an order from a judge in the district granting Robinson permission.

The restriction applies only to Robinson’s removal of this particular state-court action. The court warned that Smith could also face a vexatious-litigant order and an order requiring payment of Wells Fargo’s removal-related fees and costs if she removed the action again.