Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson

Background

The dispute arose from years of litigation after Wells Fargo foreclosed on a home owned by Defendant Equaan Smith. Defendant Russell A. Robinson, described as Smith’s former attorney, owns a four-percent interest in the home. Wells Fargo previously brought state-law claims for declaratory relief, cancellation of an instrument, quiet title, and slander of title in Alameda County Superior Court. The parties later filed a stipulated dismissal following a settlement, and judgment was entered in Wells Fargo’s favor.

The defendants removed the action to federal court four times, seeking to prevent the state court from ruling on motions to enforce the judgment or convey possession of the property to Wells Fargo. The court remanded the earlier removals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Robinson removed the action again after Wells Fargo filed a December 2024 motion seeking possession of the property.

Removal and Jurisdiction

Robinson invoked federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that the state-court judgment would deprive the defendants of property in violation of due-process and equal-protection rights and referenced the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Smith did not formally join the removal, although she separately opposed Wells Fargo’s request to relate this case to the earlier removals.

Under the federal removal statute, a defendant may generally move a civil case from state court to federal court only when the federal court would have had jurisdiction if the case had originally been filed there. The removing defendant has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction generally depends on whether a federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, rather than in a defense.

The court held that federal-question jurisdiction was lacking because Wells Fargo’s complaint asserted only state-law claims: declaratory relief, cancellation of an instrument, quiet title, and slander of title. Robinson’s proposed defenses based on due process, equal protection, or the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act could not create federal jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley remanded the action to Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order also found that Robinson’s removal was objectively unreasonable in light of the successive removals described in the opinion and a contemporaneously filed order declaring Robinson a vexatious litigant. The court directed Wells Fargo to file a motion for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) by February 6, 2025. The order directed Wells Fargo to seek fees and costs but did not itself award them.