Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-00671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wells Fargo Bank v. Smith, Judge Corley ordered Smith to explain why a filing restriction should not bar further removals.
Equaan Smith and her counsel, Jeffrey Neustadt, were required to respond and appear at a hearing. Smith could face a prefiling review order restricting further removal notices; Wells Fargo is the opposing party in the underlying foreclosure-related litigation.
What happened
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith concerns repeated attempts to move a foreclosure-related case from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court. The court said the state-court case had been settled and judgment had been entered for Wells Fargo.
The court said Smith’s latest removal relied on the same improper federal-question allegations used in an earlier removal, involving alleged unlawful debt reporting or collection. The court had previously warned Smith about possible filing restrictions and had repeatedly sent the case back to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered Smith to explain why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to a prefiling review order barring further removal notices in the state-court case. Smith had to file a written response by February 27, 2025, and appear with her counsel, Jeffrey Neustadt, at a March 6, 2025 hearing; failure to do so could result in the order being entered without further notice.
The detailed version
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith · No. 3:25-cv-00671
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
The case followed years of litigation after Wells Fargo foreclosed on a home owned by Defendant Equaan Smith. Defendant Russell Robinson, Smith’s former attorney, owns a four percent interest in the property. In 2020, Wells Fargo filed a state-court action seeking declaratory relief, cancellation of an instrument, quiet title, and slander of title. The parties later stipulated to dismissal after settling, and judgment was entered in Wells Fargo’s favor.
The opinion states that defendants removed the state-court action to federal court five times to try to prevent the state court from ruling on motions to enforce the judgment or convey possession of the property to Wells Fargo. Each time, the federal court remanded the action to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had also issued an order prohibiting Robinson from removing the state-court action again without federal court approval.
Order to Show Cause
The court had previously warned Smith that repeated removals without a good-faith basis for federal jurisdiction could lead to a restrictive prefiling order. Despite that warning, Smith removed the action again based on allegations that Wells Fargo was engaged, or might be engaged, in unlawful debt reporting or collection activity under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The court stated that these allegations did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion also states that Smith and her counsel, Jeffrey Neustadt, did not appear at an earlier hearing concerning Smith’s successive removal.
Ruling and next steps
The court ordered Smith to show cause why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to a prefiling review order prohibiting her from filing further notices of removal of the state-court action. Smith was ordered to file a written response by February 27, 2025. Smith and Neustadt were ordered to appear in person at a March 6, 2025 hearing. The court warned that failure to file the response and appear could result in entry of a vexatious-litigant order without further notice. This order required an explanation; it did not state that the proposed filing restriction had already been entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.