Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04231/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04231-0/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 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO 

STATE COURT AND DEFENDANT 

REQUIRED TO PAY ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES

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

County of San Mateo, assigned the case number CLJ211119 in that court. Defendant Lorenzo 

Cruz, Jr. (“Cruz”) previously removed 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 a motion to remand by Plaintiff Baldini Real Estate, Inc. (“Baldini”), although she denied 

Baldini’s request for attorneys’ fees.

On that first removal, Cruz failed to respond to Baldini’s motion. Remand Order (2932 

Case dkt. 5) 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. 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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 removed once again 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 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,” Notice of Removal (dkt. 1) ¶ 25, but this Court has no power to 

“reevaluate” binding Supreme Court precedent. 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 Notice of Removal ¶¶ 11−17, but 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.” 

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).

Accordingly, Cruz is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be 

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 3
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

remanded to the California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo, and why Cruz should not 

be liable for Baldini’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. The parties may file a response to this Order 

no later than Tuesday, October 6, 2015, and Cruz shall appear for a show cause hearing at 

9:30 AM on Friday, October 9, 2015 in Courtroom G, located on the 15th floor of the federal 

courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.1 If Cruz fails to appear, 

the undersigned will recommend that the case be remanded and may recommend that Cruz be 

sanctioned.

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, and telephone appointments are available. Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can provide 

basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1 Counsel for Baldini is encouraged to request a telephonic appearance in order to minimize 

attorneys’ fees.

Case 4:15-cv-04231-YGR Document 5 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 3