Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05751/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05751-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09:201 Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Award

---

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

ARNOLD LEONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARREN HAVENS,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-05751-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Arnold Leong brings claims against Warren Havens, as well as various legal 

entities formerly controlled by Havens, related to an ownership dispute over hundreds of wireless

spectrum licenses. ECF No. 1 at 30-72. The entities holding these licenses (“Receivership 

Entities”) are under the control of a receiver, Susan Uecker, who was appointed by the Alameda 

County Superior Court. Case No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 24-1 at 8-9. 

In June 2015, Havens removed this action to federal court for the first time, and this Court 

remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 53, 65-68. Havens removed the case to 

federal court for the second time on June 15, 2018. Case No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 1. On 

September 7, 2018, the Court again remanded, holding that Havens’ notice of removal was 

untimely filed and not consented to by all defendants, and furthermore that the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. Case No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 50. Havens has since appealed this 

remand order to the Ninth Circuit. Case No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 54.

The instant notice of removal, filed September 19, 2018, represents Havens’ third attempt 

to remove this case to federal court. ECF No. 1. The Court will now order Havens to show cause 

why his case should not again be remanded and why he should not be ordered to pay Leong and 

Uecker’s attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 2
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

“Where a court has previously remanded a removed action for a defendant’s failure to meet 

its burden, successive notices of removal, though not necessarily barred, generally must be based 

on information not available at the prior removal.” Sweet v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. CV 09-

02653 DDP (RZx), 2009 WL 1664644, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2009) (citing Mattel, Inc. v. 

Bryant, 441 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Barahona v. Orkin, No. CV 08-04634-RGK 

(SHx), 2008 WL 4724054 (C. D. Cal. October 21, 2008)). This rule applies even when the earlier 

notice of removal was rejected due to procedural defects such as untimely filing. “[A] party is not 

entitled . . . to file a second petition for removal upon the same grounds, where upon the first 

removal by the same party, the federal court declined to proceed and remanded the suit, because of 

his failure to file the required copy within the time fixed by the statute.” St. Paul & C. Ry. Co. v. 

McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883). Havens’s latest notice of removal does not appear to list any 

grounds for removal that have not already been presented to, and rejected by, the Court.

Moreover, a successively-removing defendant may not seek reconsideration of the district 

court’s prior remand order, on appeal or otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Seedman v. U.S. Dist. 

Court for C.D. Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Havens’s filings so far 

indicate that this is exactly what he seeks here. See Case No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF No. 58 at 5 

(arguing that “the current removal case would be more properly handled by a judge who did not 

issue the [earlier] remand order in this Case” and expressing concern that relating the earlier- and 

later-filed cases would lead to Judge Tigar “review[ing] his own remand decision”).

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby issues an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

why the case should not be remanded for improper successive removal, as well as why fees and 

costs should not be awarded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Havens shall file a written response to 

this order no later than October 17, 2018. The Court will conduct a hearing on this order to show 

cause on October 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2018

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 18 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 2