Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04231/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04231-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALDINI REAL ESTATE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORO LORENZO CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04231-JCS 

AMENDED1 REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 

REMAND, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND 

PRE-FILING REVIEW

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 7

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an unlawful detainer action originally filed in the California Superior Court for the 

County of San Mateo and assigned the case number CLJ211119 in that court (the “State Court 

Action”). The case has been removed and remanded once before, and the undersigned magistrate 

judge issued an Order to Show Cause (the “OSC,” dkt. 5) why it should not be remanded again

and why Defendant Floro Lorenzo Cruz should not be required to pay attorneys‟ fees incurred by

Plaintiff Baldini Real Estate, Inc. (“Baldini”). Baldini also moves for remand and attorneys‟ fees, 

as well as an order declaring Cruz a vexatious litigant and requiring pre-filing review of any 

further attempts to remove this action. See Mot. (dkt. 7). The undersigned held a hearing on the 

OSC on October 9, 2015, and a second hearing on Baldini‟s Motion on October, 16, 2015. For the

reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the case be REMANDED, that Cruz be 

ORDERED to pay Baldini‟s attorneys‟ fees in the amount of $3,040, and that the Court enter an 

order REQUIRING PRE-FILING REVIEW of any further removal of this action.

 

1

This Amended Report is identical to the previously-filed version (dkt. 13) except to correct an 

error on page 7. The previous Report referenced state bar records for Jonathan Andrew Bornstein, 

state bar number 196345, who has been admitted to practice for more than seventeen years. 

Plaintiff‟s attorney is Jonathan Herschel Bornstein, state bar number 163392, who has been 

admitted for more than twenty-two years. The discrepancy does not alter the undersigned‟s 

substantive recommendations.

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 10
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Because not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c), the case will be assigned to a United States district judge for further proceedings, 

including action on these recommendations. Any party that wishes to file an objection to these 

recommendations may do so no later than fourteen days after being served with a copy of this 

Report.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant Lorenzo Cruz, Jr. previously removed the State Court Action to this Court 

asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which provides for the removal of certain cases 

where the state court is unable to enforce a defendant‟s federal civil rights. See generally Baldini 

Real Estate Inc. v. Cruz, No. 15-cv-2932-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (the “2932 Case”). The Honorable 

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Baldini‟s motion to remand, although she denied Baldini‟s 

request for attorneys‟ fees. See generally Remand Order (2932 Case dkt. 5).2

On that first removal, Cruz failed to respond to Baldini‟s motion to remand. Remand 

Order at 1. Judge Gonzalez Rogers found two independent grounds for remand. First, she held 

that Cruz‟s removal failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it was not timely, and that 

Cruz therefore waived any right to remove that he might have had. Id. at 2−3. Second, she held 

that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and that Cruz‟s reliance on 

§ 1443(1) was misplaced because he did not allege racial discrimination and binding “Supreme 

Court and Ninth Circuit precedent undoubtedly limit removal under section 1443(1) to only cases 

where it is predicated upon racial discrimination.” Id. at 3−4 (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 

780, 788−92 (1966); Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998−99 (9th Cir. 2006)). Judge 

Gonzalez Rogers also commented in a footnote that Cruz‟s notice of removal did not indicate 

whether his codefendant Armie Cruz joined in the removal. Id. at 3 n.3. 

Cruz has now once again removed the State Court Action to this Court. His present notice 

of removal does not appear to resolve the issues identified in Judge Gonzalez Rogers‟s order. He 

does not address the previous finding that his removal was not timely. He continues to argue that 

 

2

Baldini Real Estate Inc. v. Cruz, No. 15-cv-2932-YGR, 2015 WL 4760510 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 

2015).

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 10
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the case is removable under § 1443(1) because the California courts purportedly violated his 

federal due process rights, but does not identify any discrimination based on race, or any authority 

overruling the Supreme Court‟s holding that “broad contentions under the . . . Due Process Clause 

. . . cannot support a valid claim for removal under § 1443, because the guarantees of those clauses 

are phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or citizens, rather than in the 

specific language of racial equality that § 1443 demands.” See Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792. Cruz 

“urges this Court to consider a comprehensive reevaluation of the . . . Civil Rights Removal 

doctrine articulated in [e.g.] Rachel v. Georgia.” 2d Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) ¶ 25. Finally, 

Cruz‟s present notice of removal adds the argument that the case is removable because the Court 

has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, see 2d Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11−17, although 

he fails to provide any information about the citizenship of any party, and also fails to address 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which provides that a case originally filed in state court cannot be removed 

based on diversity jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 

defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 

The undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause on September 25, 2015, ordering Cruz to 

demonstrate why the case should not be remanded again and why Cruz should not be required to 

pay Baldini‟s attorneys‟ fees arising from the second removal. See OSC. On October 5, 2015, 

Baldini filed its present Motion seeking that the case be remanded, Cruz be required to pay 

Baldini‟s attorneys‟ fees, and the Court enter an order requiring pre-filing review of any further 

removal. See Mot. Baldini argues that Cruz has engaged in a pattern of delay, including filing 

baseless bankruptcy petitions. See id. The Court held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause on 

October 9, 2015, and a second hearing on Baldini‟s Motion—which goes beyond the Order to 

Show Case in that it requests a pre-filing review order—on October 16, 2015. Cruz did not file 

any response to either the Order to Show Cause or Baldini‟s Motion, although he did appear at 

both hearings.

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 10
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. ANALYSIS

A. Remand

1. Legal Standard

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. Generally, a defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if 

the action could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal 

statutes are construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 

v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption 

against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v.

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the 

burden of showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th 

Cir. 2004). 

2. Removal Was Not Timely Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)

A notice of removal must be filed within thirty days of service of an initial pleading or 

summons. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). In the previous order remanding this case, Judge Gonzalez 

Rogers determined that summons in the underlying action was served on May 20, 2015. Remand 

Order at 2. “To be timely under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b), therefore, defendant‟s notice of 

removal would have to have been filed in federal court no later than June 19, 2015.” Id. at 3. 

Judge Gonzelez Rogers held that the first removal was not timely because Cruz filed it five days 

late on June 24, 2015. Id. Cruz‟s present Notice of Removal fails to address timeliness. The 

present removal was filed on September 17, 2015—one hundred twenty days after service of 

process. This alone is reason for remand.

3. Removal Was Not Proper Under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)

On the previous removal, Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected Cruz‟s contention that the case 

was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which provides for removal by “any person who is 

denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal 

civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof,” 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 10
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

because binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent dictate that § 1443(1) is limited to 

“cases where [removal] is predicated upon racial discrimination.” Remand Order at 4 (citing 

Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788−92 (1966); Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998−99 

(9th Cir. 2006)). Cruz does not argue that he is a victim of racial discrimination by the California 

courts, and instead “urges this Court to consider a comprehensive re-evaluation of” Rachel, among 

other Supreme Court decisions. 2d Notice of Removal ¶¶ 25, 29−30. This Court is bound by the 

precedent of the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, and has no authority to reconsider those 

decisions and the rules set forth therein. The undersigned finds no basis for removal under 

§ 1443(1) because Cruz has failed to establish any discrimination based on race.

4. Removal Was Not Proper Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b)

Cruz‟s present Notice of Removal also asserts that removal was proper based on diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 2d Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11−17. Federal courts have 

diversity jurisdiction only where there is complete diversity of citizenship—no plaintiff is a citizen 

of the same state as any defendant—and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332; see, e.g., Matao Yokeno v. Sawako Sekiguchi, 754 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 2014). The 

removal statute also provides that a case cannot be removed based on diversity jurisdiction “if any 

of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which 

such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Cruz presents no evidence or allegation of any 

party‟s citizenship, and thus has not met his burden to show that complete diversity of citizenship 

exists. Further, even if the parties‟ citizenships were diverse, it appears from the record that Cruz 

is a citizen of California. Under § 1441(b)(2), Cruz therefore cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction 

to remove a case originally filed in a California court. The Court need not address the amount-incontroversy requirement.

5. Removal Was Not Proper Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441

Cruz also asserts that “[r]emoval is proper because defendants filed suit in the federal court 

claiming matters which involve federal questions.” 2d Notice of Removal ¶ 10. The undersigned 

takes judicial notice of this Court‟s case number 12-cv-03219-WHO, in which Floro and Armie 

Cruz brought claims against three financial and mortgage corporations (although not Baldini) 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 10
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

relating to an alleged wrongful foreclosure. That action was dismissed by the parties‟ stipulation 

on January 7, 2015. Cruz fails to explain why that action or any other case he filed in federal court 

affects the removability of the present case, which Baldini filed in state court based on a state-law 

unlawful detainer claim. The undersigned finds no grounds for removal based on federal question 

jurisdiction.

* * *

Because removal was untimely, and because there was no valid basis for removal, the 

undersigned recommends that the case be once again REMANDED to the California Superior 

Court for San Mateo County.

B. Attorneys’ Fees

If a case is improperly removed, “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of 

just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). An award of attorneys‟ fees may be appropriate where removal has been 

“sought for the purpose of prolonging litigation and imposing costs on the opposing party,” and 

“the standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonableness of the removal.” Martin v. 

Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140−41 (2005).

Here, Cruz‟s second removal was objectively unreasonable. The Court previously found 

the removal procedurally improper as untimely, and also unsupported by any statutory basis for 

removal. See generally Remand Order. Cruz‟s second Notice of Removal failed to address the 

timeliness issue entirely, and provided only legally baseless arguments addressing Judge Gonzalez 

Rogers‟s analysis of § 1443(1). See generally 2d Notice of Removal. Cruz has now removed this 

case twice, and also filed multiple bankruptcy petition that delayed foreclosure. See Mot. at 5−6; 

Bornstein Decl. (dkt. 7-1) ¶¶ 10−11 & Ex. D (June 22, 2015 Order of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California barring Cruz from filing any further 

bankruptcy petition without leave of the court for two years). At the hearing on the Order to Show 

Cause in this case, Cruz stated that he intended to delay the case so that he would have additional 

time to find a lawyer. Whether there is any basis to stay the case is a question for the state court—

removal “for the purpose of prolonging litigation” is improper. See Martin, 546 U.S. at 140−41. 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 6 of 10
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Further, while a pro se plaintiff‟s misunderstanding of the law may be understandable in the first 

instance, in this case Cruz had the benefit of Judge Gonzalez Rogers‟s Order explaining why the 

case was not removable, and nevertheless removed for a second time. The undersigned therefore 

recommends awarding Baldini its reasonable attorneys‟ fees.

Baldini‟s counsel submits a declaration stating that he spent eight hours preparing 

Baldini‟s present Motion and that his hourly billing rate is $380, resulting in total fees of $3,040. 

Bornstein Decl. ¶ 14. Although Baldini failed to submit any materials justifying its counsel‟s 

billing rate as reasonable, the undersigned takes judicial notice of California state bar records 

indicating that Mr. Bornstein has been admitted to practice law for more than twenty-two years. 

Taking into account that Baldini has not requested fees for its counsel‟s appearance at the two 

hearings on the present removal, the undersigned finds the total fee request to be reasonable, and 

recommends that it be awarded. See State Bar of Cal., Attorney Profile: Jonathan Herschel

Bornstein - #163392, http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/163392 (accessed Oct. 16, 

2015). Accordingly the undersigned recommends that the Court ORDER Cruz to pay Baldini 

$3,040 in attorneys‟ fees.

C. Vexatious Litigant Order and Pre-Filing Review

In another case involving serial removals of a state court unlawful detainer action—in that 

case, four successive removals—Judge Lloyd set forth the standard for declaring a party to be a 

vexatious litigant and entering an order requiring pre-filing review:

“Federal courts have the inherent power „to regulate the activities of 

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the 

appropriate circumstances,‟” including the issuance of pre-filing 

orders. Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Ltd. Partnership, No. 10-03022 

CW, 2011 WL 635268 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2011) (quoting 

DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). Prefiling orders are rarely used and “cannot issue merely upon a 

showing of litigiousness.” Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 

(9th Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, “district courts „bear an affirmative 

obligation to ensure that judicial resources are not needlessly 

squandered on repeated attempts by litigants to misuse the courts.‟” 

Bridgewater, 2011 WL 635268 at *4 (quoting O’Loughlin v. Doe, 

920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990)). And, “„[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.‟” Molski v. 

Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 7 of 10
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148)). In determining whether a prefiling order should issue, courts must (1) give the litigant notice and 

an opportunity to be heard; (2) compile and adequate record for 

review; (3) make substantive findings about the frivolous or 

harassing nature of the litigant‟s filings; and (4) narrowly tailor any 

resulting order to fit the specific vice encountered. Id.

NGA Inv., LLC v. Beronilla, No. 5:14-cv-02457 HRL, 2014 WL 3421919, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 

14, 2014) (alteration in original), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 3867781 (Aug. 

4, 2014). The undersigned addresses each of the four requirements in turn.

First, Cruz has had a notice and opportunity to be heard because the undersigned set a 

schedule for Baldini‟s Motion inviting Cruz to file an opposition by October 15, 2015. See Order 

Re Letter Received from Counsel (dkt. 6). Baldini filed its Motion pursuant to that schedule on 

October 5, 2015, but Cruz failed to respond. Cruz has twice appeared at hearings at which the 

undersigned invited him to respond to Baldini‟s request for a pre-filing review order. Finally, 

Cruz will have an opportunity to file objections to this recommendation before the Court 

determines whether to adopt it. 

Second, there is an adequate record of abuse of the removal procedure in this unlawful 

detainer action. Cruz‟s second Notice of Removal fails to adequately respond to the reasons that 

Judge Gonzelez Rogers set forth explaining why the first removal was improper. At the Order to 

Show Cause hearing, Cruz stated that he intended to delay the action to allow himself more time 

to obtain a lawyer, which is not a valid basis for removal. Further, there is a record of Cruz 

submitting numerous improper bankruptcy filings for the purpose of delay. See Bornstein Decl.

Ex. D.

Third, the undersigned finds Cruz‟s removals to be frivolous, because he failed to timely 

remove under § 1446(b), is barred from removing on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 

§ 1441(b), has failed to demonstrate any basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and asks the Court to 

disregard binding Supreme Court authority regarding § 1443(1). Although a pro se litigant‟s 

misunderstanding of the law may in some circumstances be understandable, Cruz cannot claim 

ignorance as to his second removal after receiving the Court‟s order remanding the case after his 

first removal. Moreover, Cruz stated at the Order to Show Cause hearing that he intended to delay 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 8 of 10
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the action. The record as a whole indicates an intent to delay rather than a bona fide desire to 

litigate in a federal forum, and suggests that Cruz is likely to file further frivolous removals if not 

restricted from doing so by an order of the Court.

“Finally, the vexatious litigant order „must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific 

vice encountered.‟” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148). The 

undersigned recommends that, as in NGA Investment, a vexatious litigant order be narrowly drawn 

to encompass only further removals of this unlawful detainer action, and to allow Cruz to seek 

leave of the Court for such removals rather than barring removal entirely. The undersigned 

therefore recommends that the Court enter the following order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that before filing any further notices of 

removal of San Mateo County Superior Court case number 

CLJ211119, Floro Lorenzo Cruz must first file a motion with the 

Court seeking leave to file a notice of removal. Any such motion 

must include: (1) a copy of Judge Spero‟s Report and 

Recommendation issued in this case, (2) a copy of this Order, and 

(3) a copy of the proposed filing. The Clerk of the Court shall not 

accept for filing any further notices of removal of San Mateo County 

Superior Court case number CLJ211119 unless accompanied by an 

order from a judge of this district granting leave to file the removal 

papers.

The language above is included only to illustrate the recommended order and to allow Cruz

an opportunity to respond. No such order will be entered unless and until these recommendations 

are adopted by a United States district judge.3

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that this case be REMANDED 

to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, that Cruz be ORDERED to pay 

Baldini‟s attorneys‟ fees in the amount of $3,040 and that an order be entered REQUIRING PREFILING REVIEW of any further removal of this unlawful detainer action. Because not all parties 

have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, this case will be reassigned to a United 

 

3 At the October 16, 2015 hearing, Baldini requested that Armie Cruz—Floro Cruz‟s wife and 

codefendant in the State Court Action—also be barred from further removal. Based on Armie 

Cruz‟s lack of involvement in either removal, the undersigned does not recommend issuing such 

an order. However, the parties are instructed to ensure that Armie Cruz receives a copy of this 

Report.

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 9 of 10
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

States district judge for further proceedings, including action on this recommendation—either to 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers if she determines this case is related to the 914 Case, or to a randomly 

assigned district judge if Judge Gonzalez Rogers determines that it is not related. Any party that 

wishes to file objections to this recommendation may do so within fourteen days of being 

served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Cruz, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 

Bono Project‟s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 

for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 

floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in 

Room 470-S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be 

made by calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up in the appointment book located outside either 

office. Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing 

themselves but cannot provide legal representation.

Dated: October 16, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 15 Filed 10/16/15 Page 10 of 10