Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-09335
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 24-cv-09335- JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 9 v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 10 RUSSELL A ROBINSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 Defendants. 11

12 This case arises out of years of litigation following Wells Fargo’s foreclosure of a home 13 owned by Defendant Equaan Smith in which Defendant Robinson, her former attorney, owns a 14 four percent interest. In 2020, Wells Fargo brought an action for declaratory relief, cancellation of 15 instrument, quiet title, and slander of title in the Alameda County Superior Court. See Wells 16 Fargo Bank, N.A. VS Smith, No. RG20051563. Two years later, the parties filed a stipulated 17 dismissal following a settlement whereby judgment was entered in Wells Fargo’s favor. Since this 18 time, Defendants have removed the action to this court on four occasions, seeking to prevent the 19 superior court from ruling on pending motions to enforce the judgment and/or convey possession 20 of the subject property to Wells Fargo. See Case No. 23-3090; Case No. 23-6135; Case No. 24- 21 3344. On each occasion, the Court has remanded the action to the superior court for lack of subject 22 matter jurisdiction. See Case No. 23-3090, Dkt. No. 29; Case No. 23-6135, Dkt. No. 30; Case No. 23 24-3344, Dkt. No. 20. 24 Defendant Robinson has again removed the action following Wells Fargo’s December 25 2024 motion seeking possession of the subject property. Robinson again invokes federal question 26 jurisdiction arguing Wells Fargo sought to deprive Defendants of the property in violation of their 27 1 due process and equal protection rights. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.1) Smith did not formerly join in the 2 removal, but she separately opposed Wells Fargo’s request to relate the action to the previously 3 improperly removed actions. (No. 24-9335, Dkt. No. 8.) The Court granted Wells Fargo’s 4 motion to relate the actions. (No. 23-3090, Dkt. No. 9.) Because the Court previously remanded 5 this action based on identical allegations of federal question jurisdiction (see No. 23-6135, Dtk. 6 No. 1 at 3, Dkt. No. 30), and these grounds do not establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, 7 this action is again REMANDED to the Alameda County Superior Court. 8 DISCUSSION 9 “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may generally remove a civil action from state court 10 to federal district court if the district court would have had subject matter jurisdiction had the 11 action been originally filed in that court.” Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 12 1124 (9th Cir. 2013). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. 13 Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020). As courts of limited 14 jurisdiction, federal district courts construe the removal statute strictly and reject jurisdiction if 15 there is any doubt as to removability. Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 16 543, 550 (9th Cir. 2018). 17 Robinson’s Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.) 18 Specifically, he alleges “State Court Judgment would deprive Defendant of property in violation 19 of the right to due process and equal protection of law” and references the Federal Debt Collection 20 Practices Act. (Id. at 2-3.) District courts have original jurisdiction over cases where a “federal 21 question” is present, which occurs if a plaintiff’s original cause of action arises under federal law. 22 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “an action ‘aris[es] under’ federal law 23 ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 24 complaint.’” Hansen v. Grp. Health Corp., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations 25 omitted). “In determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based upon a federal question, the 26 court must look to the complaint as of the time the removal petition was filed.” O’Halloran v. 27 1 Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also Franchise Tax 2 || Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14, (1983) (“a case may not be removed to 3 federal court on the basis of a federal defense.”’). 4 Federal question jurisdiction does not exist here because Wells Fargo’s complaint brings 5 only state law claims for declaratory relief, cancellation of instrument, quiet title, and slander of 6 || title. To the extent Defendants seek to raise defenses based on their due process rights or the 7 FDCPA, this does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction as the Court has previously 8 held. (Case No. 23-6135, Dkt. No. 30; Case No. 24-3344, Dkt. No. 20.) “Federal jurisdiction is 9 || lacking even if a defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law.” Sullivan v. First 10 Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). This action thus must be remanded to 11 the Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 12 Further, given Defendants’ abusive and successive removals of this action from the 13 superior court as set forth in the contemporaneously filed order declaring Robinson a vexatious 14 || litigant, the Court finds Robinson’s removal was objectively unreasonable. See Martin v. Franklin 3 15 Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (“courts may award attorney’s fees under [28 U.S.C.] § a 16 1447(c) [] where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking 3 17 removal.”). Wells Fargo is directed to file a motion for fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 1447(c) by February 6, 2025. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Robinson removed this action from state court based on federal question jurisdiction. As 21 there is no federal question presented by the removed state court complaint, the Court lacks 22 subject matter jurisdiction and again REMANDS the case to the Alameda County Superior Court. 23 Wells Fargo is directed to file a motion in support of its fees and costs by February 6, 2025. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: January 10, 2025 , Std 26 ne JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL 27 United States District Judge 28