United States District Court, N.D. California
FOR RELATEDNESS DETERMINATION; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
AND MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING AND
GRANTING IFP APPLICATION; REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT; REPORT
& RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, Re:
ECF 1, 3, 4, 7
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard concurrently filed an
administrative sealing motion, a motion for permission for
electronic case filing, a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”), and a complaint that
purports to be qui tam on behalf of the United States of
America and the Internal Revenue Service. See ECF 1,
3, 4, 7. Based on similar facts and legal claims, the
undersigned REFERS this matter to District Judge Edward J.
Davila under Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), to determine whether
it is related to Sepehry-Fard v. Aurora Bank FSB,
docket is currently under seal. While qui tam False Claims
Act claims must be filed under seal, Sepehry-Fard is not
authorized to bring such an action and does not offer other
compelling reasons to seal the case filings, so the pending
sealing motion is DENIED. Authorizing Sepehry-Fard to file
documents through ECF is not warranted in this case, so the
motion for permission for electronic case filing is DENIED.
Sepehry-Fard's application to proceed IFP establishes
inability to pay court filing fees, so the motion to proceed
IFP is GRANTED.
the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
undersigned FINDS that the complaint fails as a matter of
law, because a pro se plaintiff may not bring a qui tam False
Claims Act action. The parties have not consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
so the undersigned REQUESTS that the clerk of court reassign
this matter to a district judge, with the RECOMMENDATION that
the case be dismissed without leave to amend, but without
prejudice to future re-filing by a licensed attorney.
purports to bring his complaint qui tam on behalf of the
United States of America and the Internal Revenue Service,
alleging a single cause of action under the federal False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. See
Compl. ¶ 1. The complaint names as defendants U.S. Bank
N.A., as trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Trust Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-AR2; Nationstar Mortgage LLC;
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.; Capital One N.A.; Severson
& Werson APC; Joseph W. Guzzetta; Bernard J. Kornberg;
Adam N. Barasch; Mark Joseph Kenney; William A. Aspinwall;
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company; Clear Recon
Corporation; and fifty Doe defendants. Id. In broad
terms, Sepehry-Fard accuses the defendants of fabricating and
falsifying financial instruments and documents related to the
foreclosure of Sepehry-Fard's property located at 12309
Saratoga Creek Drive, Saratoga, California 95070, and using
those fraudulent documents to evade taxation and obtain other
financial benefits. Id. ¶¶ 13, 49-76.
Sepehry-Fard's fifth lawsuit related to the foreclosure
of the Saratoga Creek Drive property. The other four are:
Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No.
14-cv-03218-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (dismissing without leave to
amend); Sepehry-Fard v. Green Point Mortgage Funding,
Inc., Case No. 13-cv-4535-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (dismissing
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction);
Sepehry-Fard v. Aurora Bank FSB, Case No.
12-cv-00871-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (dismissing with prejudice);
Sepehry-Fard v. Aurora Bank FSB, No. 1-11-cv-209804
(Cal. Super. Ct.).
of the five lawsuits related to the Saratoga Creek Drive
property, Sepehry-Fard has filed five actions related to the
foreclosure of a different property located at 18314 Baylor
Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Those five are:
Sepehry-Fard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
No. 16-mc-80112 (N.D. Cal.); Sepehry-Fard v. Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 14-cv-5142-LHK (N.D.
Cal.); Sepehry-Fard v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
No. 13-cv-5769-BLF (N.D. Cal.); Sepehry-Fard v. Bank of
N.Y. Mellon, No. 12-cv-1260-LHK (N.D. Cal.);
Sepehry-Fard v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No.
1-11-cv-210028 (Cal. Super. Ct.).
the fourth lawsuit about the Baylor Avenue property, District
Judge Lucy H. Koh declared Sepehry-Fard a vexatious litigant.
See ECF 58 in Case No. 14-cv-5142-LHK. That order
requires Sepehry-Fard to “obtain leave before filing
any action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California related to the foreclosure on
his property located at 18314 Baylor Avenue, Saratoga,
California 95070.” Id. at 21. It was this
vexatious litigant order that caused the general duty judge
to review and deny Sepehry-Fard's fifth attempt to
initiate a lawsuit about the Baylor Avenue property.
See ECF 2 in Case No. 16-mc-80112-EJD.
Ninth Circuit has summarily affirmed dismissals of
Sepehry-Fard's lawsuits as to both properties. See
Sepehry-Fard v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 13-16674 (9th
Cir. Dec. 18, 2014); Sepehry-Fard v. Aurora Bank
FSB, No. 13-15307 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014).
Relatedness Referral and Vexatious Litigant
light of Sepehry-Fard's history before this Court, two
procedural matters are in order. First, this case is referred
to District Judge Edward J. Davila to determine whether it is
related to the first-filed action in this Court related to