United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: Hon. Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate
Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings:(IN
CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS
The
Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant
David Dadon on June 20, 2019 [Dkt. 1, “Notice”].
By the Notice, Dadon purports to remove an unlawful detainer
action pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.
18VEUD0848 (the “Unlawful Detainer Action”). For
the following reasons, the Court ORDERS Dadon to SHOW CAUSE
why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500 based
on the filing of the Notice.
The
Notice is duplicative of a previous notice of removal filed
by Dadon in Case No. 2:19-cv-04604-PSG (JCx) (the
“Prior Removal Action”). In the Prior Removal
Action, Dadon filed an identical Notice of Removal on May 28,
2019, which purported to remove the Unlawful Detainer
Action.[1] [Prior Removal Action, Dkt. 1.] On June 6,
2019, United States District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez
remanded the Prior Removal Action to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, after expressly advising Dadon that: he had
not overcome the strong presumption that the Court lacked
jurisdiction over the purely state law Unlawful Detainer
Action; the state court records indicated that the Unlawful
Detainer Action could not have been filed originally in
federal court; the Notice of Removal did not plausibly
support finding diversity or federal question jurisdiction to
exist; and removal may not be based on asserted or
anticipated defenses to be raised by a defendant. [Prior
Removal Action, Dkt. 6.]
In
derogation of, and in disregard for, District Judge
Gutierrez's June 6, 2019 Order, Dadon has re-filed an
identical Notice of Removal - the same pleading that District
Judge Gutierrez already had been found constituted an
improper attempt at removal. Dadon's attachment of a June
11, 2019 Notice of Ruling changes nothing and plainly does
not provide any basis for finding that federal jurisdiction
exists with respect to the Unlawful Detainer Action; it does
not. Given the express advice given to Dadon about the
impropriety of his prior attempt to remove the Unlawful
Detainer Action and the timing of the instant Notice just two
business days before the trial of the Unlawful Detainer
Action is scheduled to commence, the strong inference exists
that Dadon filed the Notice solely for the purpose of
delaying the Unlawful Detainer Action trial and not out of
any legitimate belief that this state case actually is
removable.
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a notice of removal is signed
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by
presenting the signed Notice to this District Court, Dadon
certified that: it was not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to cause unnecessary delay; the Notice and
all legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law;
and his factual contentions have evidentiary support. It is
plain that Dadon has violated Rule 11(b) in numerous
respects.
First,
Dadon states that the Unlawful Detainer Action is founded on
a claim or right arising under the laws of the United States,
namely, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Notice at 2.) Dadon
asserts that plaintiff's claim in the Unlawful Detainer
action “is a federal question arising under”
Section 1981. (Id.) This assertion is clearly false.
The Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer Action[2] is a simple form
unlawful detainer complaint that asserts a limited civil case
claim under California unlawful detainer law. It does not
state or even hint at any federal issue or claim,
and involves only state law issues. Dadon's statement
that it does is plainly insupportable and false.
Second,
in an apparent attempt to manufacture diversity jurisdiction,
Dadon states that the damages sought in the Unlawful Detainer
Action “exceed $75, 000.” (Notice at 2.) Again,
this is plainly false. The Unlawful Detainer Action Complaint
explicitly states that the amount demanded “does not
exceed $10, 000.”
Third,
Dadon states that the Notice is “timely filed.”
(Notice at 3.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), Dadon was
required to file any notice of removal within 30 days after
he was served with the Complaint. The Prior Removal Action
was filed on May 28, 2019, and thus, Dadon had to have been
served with the Unlawful Detainer Action Complaint prior to
then. Given that the Unlawful Detainer Action was instituted
on November 21, 2018, Dadon's institution of the Prior
Removal Action 24 days ago, and the fact that the Unlawful
Detainer Action is set for a June 24, 2019 trial, it is
highly unlikely, if not implausible, that Dadon was not
served with the Unlawful Detainer Action complaint until May
21, 2019, or later.
The
Court has the inherent power to control the cases before it.
See, e.g., Landis v. North American Co., 57 S.Ct.
163, 166 (1936). Dadon has improperly re-filed a notice of
removal that he already has been told was improper and should
not have been filed. For that reason alone, sanctions appear
to be warranted. In addition, in the process of doing so,
Dadon plainly has violated Rule 11(b), as set forth above.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Court's inherent powers and
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dadon is
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not sanctioned, in the
amount of $500, for the conduct described herein. By
no later than June 27, 2019, Dadon shall file a
Response to this Order To Show Cause explaining why his
conduct should not result in the imposition of monetary or
other sanctions.
Dadon
is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this
Order to Show Cause will be deemed to constitute a concession
on his part that he has violated Rule 11(b) and that
sanctions are warranted.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
---------