Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01650/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01650-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stardom Real Estate, LLC on behalf of 

Stardom Properties, LLC,, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Neil Johnston, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-01650-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Following the Court’s order remanding this action to state court (Doc. 9), Plaintiff 

Stardom Real Estate, LLC moved for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and Arizona law. 

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendant from filing further notices of 

removal without leave of the Court. Doc. 11. 

 Although this case has been remanded to state court, the Court retains jurisdiction 

over “collateral matter[s] . . . even after being divested of jurisdiction on the merits.” 

Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding a 

district court retained jurisdiction after remand to entertain a motion for costs and fees 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). The Court nonetheless declines to award sanctions 

against Defendant, a pro se litigant who is not necessarily familiar with proper court 

procedures. Plaintiff intends to seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in state court 

for his allegedly frivolous filings (Doc. 11 at 1 n.1), and the Court concludes that 

sanctions are better addressed in the Court that has primary jurisdiction over this matter. 

 Plaintiff also requests a pre-filing injunction requiring Defendant to seek leave of 

court before filing any additional notices of removal. Such injunctions against pro se 

Case 2:13-cv-01650-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/06/13 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 

litigants are to be entered only upon “substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing 

nature of the litigant’s actions.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 

1990) (citation omitted). Because courts should remain open to all who seek to invoke 

their jurisdiction, such injunctions generally are entered only after a long history of 

abusive litigation practices. Two improvident notices of removal do not rise to that level. 

The Court will deny the request for a pre-filing injunction. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 11) is denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of September, 2013. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01650-DGC Document 14 Filed 09/06/13 Page 2 of 2