The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
Before the Court are two motions: (1) a Motion to Remand (Dkt. 10) filed by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's ("Plaintiff"); and (2) a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8) filed by Defendant Ronnie Allen Lyles ("Defendant"). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion to
In addition, the Court also GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's request for sanctions against Defendant to deter future frivolous attempts at removal. Specifically, if Defendant ever again attempts to remove this case, his Notice of Removal must also include a brief ("Vexatious Litigant Brief") of no more than 10 pages citing this Order and explaining why he should not be held in contempt and deemed a vexatious litigant under the four-factor test announced in De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants"). If Defendant's Vexatious Litigant Brief is not sufficient, this Court shall proceed to designate Defendant a vexatious litigant and this Order will serve as the "notice" required for such a designation. See id. at 1057 ("[F]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.")
On July 13, 2011, this unlawful detainer action was filed by Plaintiff in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, under case number 30-2011-00490709 for the residence at issue here See Pl.'s Request for Judicial Notice (Case No. 12-0648, Dkt. 10-2) Ex. 2 (Complaint). Plaintiff is the current owner of the Property, having obtained its ownership interest by way of a non-judicial foreclosure. See id. at Ex. 1.
A. Defendant's Bankruptcy Filing Just Before the Foreclosure Sale Three bankruptcies were filed on behalf of the Defendant between May of 2009 and September of 2011; the timing of Defendant's bankruptcy filings reflect a patter of delay and all of these bankruptcy cases were dismissed. See id. at Exs. 5, 6,7. For example, Defendant filed his second bankruptcy on August, 10, 2010-just prior to the foreclosure sale-and this bankruptcy case was dismissed a little more than a month later on September 15, 2010. See id. at Ex. 6.
B. Defendant's Multiple Removals Just Before Dispositive Decisions
Trial in this case was set for March 19, 2012, but was continued due to Defendant's first removal to this Court on March 16, 2012. See Notice of Removal (Case No. 12-0427, Dkt. 1). This Court remanded on April 24, 2012, due to Defendant's failure to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion
See Notice of Removal (Case No. 12-0427, Dkt. 18).
On April 26, 2012-two days after this case was remanded-Defendant once again removed this case. See Notice of Removal (Case No. 12-0648, Dkt. 1). Defendant's second Notice of Removal was filed the same day that ...