Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARKVIEW EDGE PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONA PROTZEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0553 TLN CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff’s motion to remand and to declare defendant a vexatious litigant came on 

regularly for hearing on April 22, 2015. Sam Chandra appeared for plaintiff. No appearance was 

made for defendant, who is proceeding in this matter in propria persona. Upon review of the 

documents in support, no opposition having been filed, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, 

and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff moves to remand this action to state court, contending there is no federal question 

or diversity jurisdiction. The underlying state court action is an unlawful detainer action. The 

state court action was previously removed by defendant to this court on January 12, 2015. See

Parkview Edge Properties, LLC v. Protzel, case no. 2:15-cv-0070 TLN CKD PS, ECF No. 1. In 

findings and recommendations filed in the prior action, the court noted that:

“[r]emoval jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed against 

removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 

1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 

Case 2:15-cv-00553-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 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

2

is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus 

v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking 

removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. 

Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the 

complaint is subject to federal question jurisdiction. Removal 

based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 

complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition establish the 

state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer 

action, and the state court action is titled as such. Defendant has

failed to meet her burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the 

matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 

(9th Cir. 1997).”

Id., ECF No. 3. The District Court adopted the findings and recommendations and the matter was 

remanded on February 20, 2015. Id., ECF No. 8.

Three weeks later, on March 12, 2015, defendant again removed the unlawful detainer 

action to federal court and again asserted federal question jurisdiction. As with defendant’s prior 

removal, there is no basis for jurisdiction evident on the face of the unlawful detainer complaint. 

There has been no change in circumstances that renders removal provident. In addition, plaintiff 

has established that diversity jurisdiction is lacking. The matter should be summarily remanded.

Plaintiff requests that defendant be declared a vexatious litigant solely with respect to the 

unlawful detainer action. Litigants who abuse the judicial process by repeatedly filing 

“unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers,” or engaging “in other tactics that are 

frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” are vexatious litigants. Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code § 391 (adopted in the Eastern District of California under L.R. 151(b)). In order to impose 

a limiting order on a vexatious litigant, four conditions must be met: (1) the litigant must have 

adequate notice to oppose the order; (2) an adequate record must be provided, listing the 

pleadings that led to the court’s decision that a vexatious litigant order was necessary; (3) the 

court must make substantive findings that the filings were frivolous or harassing; and (4) the 

order must be narrowly tailored. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 

1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 2:15-cv-00553-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, defendant has been provided notice of the motion, has failed to file opposition, and 

failed to appear at the hearing. As set forth above, defendant has already once improvidently 

removed the unlawful detainer action and been advised that a federal question must be presented 

on the face of the complaint. After the case was remanded to state court, defendant again, 

without justification, removed the unlawful detainer action to federal court. Such conduct in the 

face of the prior summary remand is frivolous, harasses plaintiff, and appears to be nothing other 

than an attempt to delay the unlawful detainer proceedings. To curb future frivolous removals

from state court, the District Court Clerk of Court should be directed to accept no further 

removals of the unlawful detainer action. Such an order is narrowly tailored to prevent the 

frivolous actions which constitute defendant’s vexatious conduct.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, 

County of El Dorado.

2. Defendant Mona Ann Protzel be declared a vexatious litigant solely with respect to the 

state court unlawful detainer action designated PCU20140352, regarding real property located at 

3305 Chasen Drive, Shingle Springs (aka Cameron Park), California, 95682.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed not to accept any more removals from state court of the 

above described unlawful detainer action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 23, 2015

4 parkview2.remud.vex

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00553-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3