Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00477/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00477-0/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

 It also appears that Park’s misconduct was not limited to the removal of this action. 1

On July 10, 2010 he filed a civil lawsuit to thwart a looming foreclosure and trustee’s sale of

the property. See Park v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, Case No. 10-CV-1546-WQH-WMC, Doc.

No. 1. But as late as December 2010, when Park was certain to lose the property in a

trustee’s sale, he offered his tenants a six-month, prepaid lease agreement. (Park Aff. ¶ 8

(“On December 16, 2010, I essentially required all tenants who elected to remain in the

- 1 - 11cv477

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13231 SUNDANCE LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv477-LAB (WVG)

ORDER SANCTIONING SEAN M.

vs. PARK

CHRISTINE CRONIN,

Defendant.

13231 Sundance is the owner of a residential property at 7421 Draper Avenue in La

Jolla, CA. Christine Cronin is a tenant. The previous owner of the property was Sean M.

Park; he was, until he lost the property to 13231 Sundance in a trustee’s sale, Cronin’s

landlord. The trustee’s sale took place on January 12, 2011, and on February 10, 2011

13231 Sundance filed an unlawful detainer action against Cronin after she allegedly failed

to pay rent she had promised to pay. On March 9, 2011, Park removed the action to this

Court by presenting himself as an intervening party and signing Cronin’s signature on the

removal notice. Once this was brought to the Court’s attention, it immediately ordered Park

to appear on April 4, 2011 and show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for his conduct.1

Case 3:11-cv-00477-WQH-WMC Document 20 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 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

Draper Avenue rental units to agree to commit to allow me to handle all legal disputes on

their behalf regarding pertaining [sic] to any future evictions and if they wished to remain in

occupancies they were further required to immediately prepay their rent for six months in

advance. I specifically informed each remaining tenant of the Draper Avenue rental units

that committing to this arrangement was essential to protect their rights to occupancy and

further advised that they should probably relocate if they were not comfortable or able to

commit to this arrangement.”).)

- 2 - 11cv477

(Doc. No. 4.) 

Park appeared on April 4, but without an attorney and without witnesses to testify in

his defense. Cronin was also unavailable on April 4 to testify on behalf of 13231 Sundance,

so the Court continued the hearing to April 25, 2011. The Court again encouraged Mr. Park

to retain counsel when it continued the hearing, but when the time came he chose to

represent himself, as was his right. 

At the beginning of the April 25 hearing, the Court entertained two motions from Mr.

Park. First, he moved for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Court denied the

motion. Under the statute, recusal is called for when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably

be questioned.” Id. The standard is an objective one, and it does not recognize the

concerns of a “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious” person. U.S. v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909,

913 (9th Cir. 2008). Just as important, it is a judge’s partiality that is at issue — that is, his

vulnerability to influences beyond the legal proceedings themselves — not his underlying

view of the case or the litigants involved. Judicial rulings are almost never a valid basis for

recusal, nor are “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving

of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.

540, 555 (1994). At best, Mr. Park can show that the Court expressed displeasure with his

posture and tactics during an earlier proceeding. That isn’t grounds for recusal. Id. (“Not

establishing bias or partiality, however, are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction,

annoyance, and even anger . . . .”). The motion for recusal is therefore DENIED.

Mr. Park’s second motion is a “Constitutional Challenge to the court and all its

officers.” The motion asserts Mr. Park’s innocence of the charges against him (there are

none, yet), accuses the Court of being on the state’s payroll (it is not), and challenges the

//

Case 3:11-cv-00477-WQH-WMC Document 20 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 11cv477

jurisdiction of the Court (this case is before the Court because Mr. Park removed it). It is,

in other words, a frivolous motion that is heavy on defiance and feather-light on meaningful

argument. The Court DENIES it as such.

The Court made two findings at the hearing that it reiterates here for emphasis. First,

Mr. Park is not a party to 13231 Sundance’s unlawful detainer action against Christine

Cronin in state court. He attempted to intervene in the underlying state case and his motion

was denied. The denial made perfect sense considering Mr. Park retains no ownership or

possessory interest in the property that was the subject of the unlawful detainer action. That

he believes his inability to intervene was the result of a conspiracy by Judge Cindy Davis to

deny him his civil rights is beside the point. It certainly does not entitle him to disregard the

state judge’s explicit ruling, announce that he’s an intervener anyway, and then pose as one

before this Court. 

Second, Ms. Cronin never authorized Mr. Park to act as her legal representative (he

is not a lawyer), nor did she authorize him to sign her name on legal documents. The Court

credits Ms. Cronin’s testimony that she informed Mr. Park of the unlawful detainer action

13231 Sundance served on her, but that is to be expected; he had previously been her

landlord, and some of the documents served on her were directed at Park. That is not

tantamount, nor does it even come close, to authorizing Mr. Park to act as her lawyer or to

authorizing him to sign her name on legal documents. 

The Court previously warned Mr. Park that he is exposed to monetary sanctions, and

that the Court may refer his conduct to the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution.

The Court now makes good on those warnings. It awards sanctions to counsel for 13231

Sundance and Ms. Cronin in the amount of $10,434 for their legal fees in contesting Mr.

Park’s fraudulent removal of this case from state court. The Court has examined both fee

applications and finds the amounts are fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the Court finds

there would have been no unnecessary fees incurred but for Park’s fraudulent removal of

this matter to which he is not a party. These sanctions are awarded pursuant to the Court’s

inherent power to punish abusive litigation practices. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447

Case 3:11-cv-00477-WQH-WMC Document 20 Filed 04/29/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 11cv477

U.S. 752, 765–67 (1980). Mr. Park is ORDERED to make payment — $6,054 to Michael

Wright and $4,380 to Steven Kellman — within 30 days of the date this Order is entered.

Failure to do so will subject Mr. Park to further charges of contempt, and an enforcement

action. 

The Court refers this matter to the United States Attorney for consideration of criminal

prosecution of Mr. Park under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 401. The U.S. Marshal is

directed to serve a copy of this Order on Mr. Park at his home address: 8011 Prospect Way,

La Mesa, California, 91941-6426.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

cc: John Owens

 Chief of the Criminal Division

United States Attorney's Office

Southern District of California

Case 3:11-cv-00477-WQH-WMC Document 20 Filed 04/29/11 Page 4 of 4