Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02181/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02181-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-02181-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-02181-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

Defendant Mr. Sepehry-Fard has removed this state court unlawful detainer action to 

federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (Dkt. 1) and has filed cross claims against numerous 

Cross Defendants (Dkt. 4). Because the removal notice and the cross claims, on their face, did not 

show that removal was appropriate, the Court ordered Defendant to file a brief showing cause why 

this case should not be dismissed. Dkt. 8. The Court also allowed Plaintiff U.S. Bank to respond. 

Id. Defendant did not address the Order to Show Cause, but rather filed a document purporting to 

remove the case to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff filed a 

response to the Order to show cause. Dkt. 11. For the reasons stated below the Court remands the 

case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 

Defendant has removed this case to the District Court for the Northern District of 

California once before on December 21, 2017. See U.S. Bank, N.A., etc. v. Fareed Sepehry-Fard, 

no. 5:17-cv-07241-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff moved to remand, and Defendant filed an 

opposition. See Dkt. 11-1. Judge Freeman ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court. See 

Dkt. 11-2. Plaintiff appealed Judge Freeman’s order, and the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed. 

See Dkt. 11-3. 

“At any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua sponte remand a case to state 

court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Lucore, 2018 

WL 5832197, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). 

Case 5:19-cv-02181-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02181-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 

 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 Californi

a

As noted in the Order to Show Cause, Defendant alleges no facts showing that removal is 

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. To remove a case under this section, a party must satisfy a twopart test. “First, the petitioners must assert . . . rights that are given to them by explicit statutory 

enactment protecting equal racial civil rights. . . . Second, petitioners must assert that the state 

courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state 

statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal 

rights.” Bartlett v. Citibank, N.A., 2019 WL 199943, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019) (citing 

Georgia. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 794-804 (1966)). The removal notice does not identify any 

state statute that purportedly directs the state court to ignore his federally protected rights. See

Dkt. 1. Nor did he raise any such defenses in his Answer in the Superior Court. See Dkt. 11-4. 

Further, “[o]nce a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of 

jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.” Seedman v. United States Dist. Court, 837 

F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). “[A] second removal petition based on the same 

grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. A second removal can only be 

appropriate when “when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for 

removal.” Kirkbride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 1991). During his prior 

attempt to remove this case, he opposed remand on section 1443 grounds. Dkt. 11-1 at 5, 10, 13. 

Judge Freeman ruled that removal was improper under section 1443. Dkt. 11-2 at 4-5. 

Defendant has failed to show that removal is proper under section 1443. And, this is his 

second attempt to remove this case pursuant to that section. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS 

the case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Because the Court finds that it lacks 

jurisdiction over the matter, it does not address Defendant’s purported removal of the case to the 

International Criminal Court. 

 The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to the Santa Clara County Superior Court as 

expeditiously as possible. The Clerk shall also close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 5:19-cv-02181-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/25/19 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02181-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 

 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 Californi

a

Dated: April 25, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-02181-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 3