U.S. Bank National Association v. Sepehry-Fard

Background

U.S. Bank National Association brought an unlawful-detainer action against Fareed Sepehry-Fard© in Santa Clara County Superior Court. U.S. Bank alleged that it was entitled to possession of property in Saratoga, California, after Defendant allegedly remained in possession following a three-day notice to quit.

Defendant removed the state case to the Northern District of California three times. The court remanded the case after the first removal, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The case was remanded again after the second removal, and the Ninth Circuit again affirmed. Defendant filed the third notice of removal on January 31, 2022. U.S. Bank moved to remand and asked for an order requiring court approval before Defendant filed another notice of removal in the case. Defendant did not file an opposition.

Remand

The court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to remand. It gave several independent reasons.

First, a second or later removal is allowed only when later pleadings or events reveal a new and different basis for federal jurisdiction. The court found that Defendant had not shown such a new basis. The grounds identified in the third removal—federal-question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443—had already been rejected in the earlier related proceedings.

Second, the notice of removal was untimely. Federal law generally requires a defendant to file a notice of removal within 30 days after being served with the state-court complaint. Defendant filed the third notice more than four years after service of the state-court case. U.S. Bank’s objection was timely because it was filed less than 30 days after the notice of removal.

Third, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning power to hear the case. The complaint asserted only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim, so it did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the amount in controversy must be measured when the case begins. Although the claimed daily damages had accumulated to more than $160,000 after several years, the amount at the start of the state case did not satisfy the $75,000 requirement.

Fourth, the court found no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. That provision can allow removal when a defendant asserts a federal racial-equality right that cannot be enforced in state court. The court found that Defendant had not shown that California law or its constitution required the state court to disregard his federal rights, and he had not presented facts or arguments changing the result of the earlier related proceeding.

Pre-filing order

The court also granted U.S. Bank’s request for a pre-filing order as modified by the court. A pre-filing order restricts a litigant’s ability to start specified proceedings without prior court approval.

Applying Ninth Circuit standards, the court considered Defendant’s history of repeated removals, the lack of a good-faith basis for the third removal, his lack of counsel, the needless expense and burden caused to U.S. Bank and the courts, and whether other measures would prevent further delay. The court found that the repeated removals were frivolous and harassing and that a pre-filing order was necessary.

The court modified U.S. Bank’s proposed order. It ordered Defendant to obtain the court’s approval before filing any case in the Northern District of California based on a notice of removal of the identified Santa Clara County Superior Court action. It did not simply bar all future filings; the order instead required prior approval for filings within that defined category.

Disposition

The order states that Defendant must obtain the court’s approval before filing any case in that federal court based on a notice of removal in the identified state action, and that this action is remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court.