Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01222/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01222-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS FORBES,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01222-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND DENYING MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), plaintiff’s motions to remand this matter to Alameda 

County Superior court and to impose monetary sanctions are suitable for disposition without oral 

argument, and the hearing set for May 21, 2015 is vacated. The motion to remand will be granted, 

but sanctions will not be imposed.

This is the third time this action has been removed to a federal court. In 2014, Sonora 

Rogers, Donnie Mayes, and Thomas Forbes, acting in pro se, jointly filed a notice of removal in 

the Central District. The court issued a remand order sua sponte, explaining that not only had the 

notice of removal been filed in the wrong district, but that there was no basis for removal 

jurisdiction in any event. 

Notwithstanding that order, in January of this year Mayes filed a notice of removal in this 

district. On plaintiff’s motion, the matter was remanded by order entered on March 2, 2015. See 

C-15-00026 RS. Dkt. No. 24. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Mayes was denied, but he 

was expressly cautioned that any further attempts to remove the action to federal court would

Case 3:15-cv-01222-RS Document 17 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-01222-RS

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

expose him to sanctions. 

Approximately two weeks later, Rogers filed the notice of removal that resulted in the 

opening of this case file. The filing of the notice of removal, which is substantially identical to the 

one filed in C-15-00026 RS, was unarguably frivolous and a transparent attempt to delay and 

interfere with the proceedings in the superior court. Rogers has filed no responses to plaintiff’s 

motions in this court. As explained in the orders of remand in the prior proceedings both here and 

in the Central District, there is no basis for removal on either federal question or diversity grounds. 

Additionally, removal at this juncture would be untimely in any event. Accordingly, the motion to 

remand must be granted.

It can be inferred that Rogers had notice of the remand order in C-15-00026 RS, both 

because she and Mayes previously filed documents jointly and because absent knowing of the 

remand, she would have had no occasion to remove. As such, the record plainly would support an 

award of monetary sanctions against her. In light of the limited deterrent effect such an award 

would serve at this point in time, however, and because the prior warning was not expressly 

directed at her, the motion for sanctions will be denied. Rogers, Mayes, Forbes, and any or all 

other persons acting with them or on their behalf are hereby expressly warned that any further 

notices of removal filed in this matter will lead to summary remand and will expose the removing 

parties to substantial monetary sanctions. This action is hereby remanded to Alameda Superior 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01222-RS Document 17 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2