Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05751/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05751-1/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 REMANDING CASE AND 

AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

Re: ECF No. 18

This case originated in the Alameda County Superior Court before Defendant Warren 

Havens removed it to federal court under a prior case number. Leong v. Havens, No. 18-cv03603-JST (“‘3603 Case”). Finding a want of federal jurisdiction, the Court remanded the case 

back to state court on September 7, 2018. Id., ECF No. 50. 

Twelve days later, Havens removed the same case to federal court again, giving rise to the 

current federal case.1 ECF No. 1. Receiver Susan Uecker filed a motion to remand, ECF No. 4, 

which Plaintiff Arnold Leong joined, ECF No. 13. Uecker also moved to relate the ‘3603 Case to 

this one and for other urgent relief, which motion Leong also joined. Leong v. Havens, No. 18-cv03603-JST, ECF No. 53. 

After reviewing these filings, the Court ordered Havens to show cause (1) why the case 

should not be remanded for improper successive removal, and (2) why he should not be ordered to 

reimburse Uecker and Leong for their attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). ECF 

No. 18. 

 

1 This is actually Havens’s third attempt to move the case to federal court. See Arnold Leong v. 

Warren Havens, an individual, Verde Systems LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, Case No. 

15-cv-02463-YGR. After his first attempt, the case was remanded on June 23, 2015.

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 69 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 4
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

In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Havens filed four documents, each 

purporting to be a slightly corrected version of the earlier. ECF Nos. 62-65.

2

 

Havens’s argument against remand is that sua sponte remand on procedural grounds is 

inappropriate under Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 

(9th Cir. 2003). ECF No. 64 at 7-11. There is no basis for this objection, however, because 

neither the Court’s prior remand order, nor the remand order the Court now issues, is or was 

issued sua sponte. When this case was brought before the Court by Havens’s second notice of 

removal, the Court remanded in response to a motion by Leong, supported by Uecker. Leong v. 

Havens, No. 18-cv-03603-JST, ECF Nos. 24, 35, 50. Similarly, the Court entered the order to 

show cause at ECF No. 18 in the current case in response to Uecker’s motion to remand at ECF 

No. 4, as well as her motion for urgent relief in the related case at ECF No. 53. Because Havens’s 

objection is without merit, and he offers no plausible basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court 

concludes that Havens has failed to show cause. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to the 

Alameda County Superior Court.3

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just 

costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” The 

Court previously alerted Havens that it might award Uecker and Leong their fees and costs 

incurred in responding to his third notice of removal, and ordered Havens to show cause why such 

relief should not issue. ECF No. 18. Havens’s response offers no argument as to why an award of 

fees and costs is not appropriate. See ECF No. 64. Furthermore, Havens’s repeated improper 

attempts at removal appear designed to frustrate his opponents’ ability to obtain judicial relief in 

the state court where this case belongs. Accordingly, the Court will award “just costs and any 

 

2 Only the first two were filed by the October 17 show-cause deadline set by the Court. ECF Nos. 

62-63. Recognizing that Havens is proceeding pro se, the Court will consider the late “errata 

version” he filed on October 18 as his operative response. ECF No. 64. However, the Court will 

not consider the additional “supplement” Havens filed on October 23, the day before the 

scheduled hearing on the Court’s order to show cause. ECF No. 65.

3 At the hearing, Havens made a request for jurisdictional discovery. The request was untimely 

and is denied on that basis alone. Even if the Court were to consider the request on the merits, 

however, it would deny it, because Havens’s assertions that discovery will uncover facts 

supporting the exercise of jurisdiction are purely speculative. See Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 

852, 860 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 69 Filed 10/25/18 Page 2 of 4
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 California

actual expenses, including attorney fees,” incurred by the Plaintiff and the Receiver in response to 

Havens’s third notice of removal. Those parties may, but are not required to, submit an 

application for such costs and expenses by November 9, 2018. Havens may file an opposition by 

November 16, 2018. At that point, the matter will be submitted. 

Finally, the Court observes that Havens’s response raises the issue of judicial recusal. See 

ECF No. 64 at 15 (“Should the Hon. Judge recuse himself based on the OCS and the Remand 

Order Appeal under 28 USC § 455(a) or §(b)(3)?”). Havens provides no further argument in this 

regard. Even construing Havens’s rhetorical question as a motion, the Court finds no reason to 

take any action on the request.4

Motions to disqualify, or recuse, a judge fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and 

sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 

or prejudice either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and 

reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify 

himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 

455(a), including where the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. § 455

(b)(1). 

A judge finding a § 144 motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must proceed no 

further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. See id.; United States v. Sibla, 624 

F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, however, the judge at 

whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. See id. at 868 (holding judge challenged 

under § 144 properly heard and denied motion where affidavit not legally sufficient).

The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under §§ 144 and 455. See

Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867. Specifically, under both statutes recusal is appropriate where “a reasonable 

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 

 

4 Havens also filed a separate request for recusal less than two hours before the hearing on the 

Court’s order to show cause. ECF No. 66. That document also offers no facts in support of 

recusal. 

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 69 Filed 10/25/18 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 

omitted). Consequently, an affidavit filed under § 144 will raise a question concerning recusal 

under §§ 455(a) and (b)(1) as well. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867.

Here, Havens has not filed an affidavit for the Court to consider. He also provides no 

reasons for recusal in the body of his motion. See ECF No. 64 at 15. Thus, his allegations 

categorically fail to establish any basis, under either § 144 or § 455, for a determination that the 

Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and are insufficient as a matter of law. 

Defendant’s motion for recusal is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2018

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05751-JST Document 69 Filed 10/25/18 Page 4 of 4