Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00339/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441pd Removal- Property Damage

---

1

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GMS LIBERTY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA M. HIB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv339-LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SANCTIONS; AND

ORDER OF PARTIAL REMAND

Daniel Hib, identifying himself as a Defendant in this case, filed a notice of 

removal, purporting to remove this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court 

of California for the County of San Joaquin. Hib is proceeding pro se and has filed 

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

The notice of removal does not explain his connection to the property at issue 

in the case — for example, as an owner, tenant or resident. He has represented 

to this Court that he lives in San Diego, rather than Stockton,1 where the real 

 

1 The address he provides in both documents he filed does not appear on San 

Diego maps. 

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

property is located that is the subject of this action. His IFP motion says he does 

not own any real estate and says his monthly rent is $250. By contrast, the state 

court complaint says the agreed monthly rent on the subject property is $2,000. 

The IFP motion also lists no one as relying on Mr. Hib for support.

The IFP motion is incomplete. In addition, it indicates he has no assets, 

debts, or income of any kind; has had no income and has received no gifts of 

money for the past twelve months; has not been employed for the past two years; 

and does not expect this to change in the next year. It also estimates his monthly 

expenses at $530, yet fails to explain how he gets the money to pay these without 

any income or assets and without incurring debt. The motion to proceed IFP is 

DENIED.

The notice of removal is riddled with problems. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1446 

(setting forth procedures for removal). In addition to the problems mentioned 

above, the case was removed to the wrong court. Cases removed from state courts 

in San Joaquin County may be removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, not to this District. See ' 1446(a). The case was filed in 

October of 2016, so even if the case is still pending in state court,2 removal is 

almost certainly untimely. The notice of removal says a copy was mailed to 

Plaintiff’s counsel, but does not include proof of filing in the state court. See

' 1446(d) (requiring that the removing party promptly file a copy of the notice of 

removal with the clerk of the state court from which the case was removed). 

The notice of removal does not include the required showing of jurisdiction. 

See ' 1446(a) (requiring the notice of removal to contain “a short and plain 

 

2 The notice of removal claims the case is “now pending” in the state court, but 

the only documents attached to the notice of removal are a complaint filed 

October 17, 2016 and a summons issued the following day. See 28 U.S.C. 

' 1446(a) (requiring that copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on 

the defendant be attached to the notice of removal). 

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

statement of the grounds for removal”). The notice cites 28 U.S.C. ' 1343 and 

conclusorily claims Mr. Hib cannot get a fair trial in state court. (Notice of Removal, 

& 11.) This statute provides that U.S. District Courts have jurisdiction over actions 

to redress deprivations of certain federally-secured rights. A party seeking to 

remove a case under '1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del Taco, 

Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). The notice of removal falls short of this. 

Finally, a review of dockets in California shows that this action has been 

removed to several other U.S. District Courts in California, as follows:

1. 16cv2999, removed December 23, 2016 to the Eastern District by 

Mr. Hib and remanded January 11, 2017, with instructions to the Clerk 

not to open another case involving this unlawful detainer action;

2. 17cv4792, removed June 29, 2017 to the Central District by Mr. Hib 

and summarily remanded July 7, 2017;

3. 17cv6615, removed September 8, 2017 by Mr. Hib to the Central 

District and remanded September 14, 2017;

4. 17cv8404, removed November 17, 2017 to the Central District

purportedly by Arun Mith and remanded December 7, 2017;

5. 17cv9197, removed December 26, 2017 to the Central District

purportedly by Samonn Mith, and remanded January 1, 2018;

6. 18cv766, removed January 30, 2018 to the Central District

purportedly by Arun Muth and remanded February 6, 2018.3

Mr. Hib filed motions to proceed IFP in the cases he removed, including 

declarations under penalty of perjury. These appear to conflict materially with each 

 

3 The Court can, and does, sua sponte take judicial notice of court records and 

other matters of public record. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Peviani v. Hostess 

Brands, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (a court may take 

judicial notice of court records).

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

other. In cases 17cv4792 and 17cv6615 in the Central District, for example, he 

said he was last employed in January of 2016, earning $21,000 a year.4 In case 

16cv2999 in the Eastern District, he filed two declarations, one dated December 

21, 2016 saying he was currently earning $24,000 per year, and a second dated 

two days later saying he was unemployed and had last been employed in January 

of 2016 earning $24,000.

In short, it appears Mr. Hib has removed this case that he knew was not 

removable, for improper purposes. He knew it was not removable because he and 

his associates have repeatedly been told so by judges. It also appears that he has 

attempted to mislead the Court about his identity, address, financial status, and 

relationship to the case. And it appears he has done these things as part of a 

pattern of improper behavior for purposes of harassing, annoying, or imposing 

costs on Plaintiff GMS Liberty LLC, its counsel Jaime Patena, and/or the state 

court where the unlawful detainer action was filed, and possibly also delaying that 

action or lawful foreclosure or eviction. Although several different names were 

used in doing this, it appears that the same person or group of people acting 

together did all of this. In so doing, it appears he has violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 

committed acts that potentially could be punished by contempt, and engaged in 

vexatious litigation — all in bad faith.

Daniel Hib is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be 

sanctioned for his latest act of removing this case to federal court in the Southern 

 

4 The IFP motions in the other cases are purportedly signed by other people, 

though the financial information is virtually the same, and the complaints appear 

to be edited versions of the same document. The other cases also give various 

apparently nonexistent addresses in Los Angeles and elsewhere. In several of 

the cases, mail addressed to him was returned as undeliverable. It appears that 

these removals have been done by either the same person, or by the same 

group of people acting together.

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

District of California, and for misstatements and misleading omissions in 

documents he filed in this Court. He is ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON at a 

hearing on Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14A (Carter-Keep 

courthouse), 333 West Broadway, in San Diego, California, to address these 

issues and explain himself. If he intends to rely on any evidence, he should be 

prepared to present that at the hearing. He may be represented by counsel if he 

wishes, but he must still appear in person. Counsel for GMS Liberty may, but need 

not, appear at the hearing. 

If Mr. Hib cannot appear on this date, he should file an ex parte motion 

(without obtaining a hearing date) well before the hearing, requesting a 

continuance and showing good cause for it. He should bear in mind that granting 

or denying such a request is within the Court’s discretion. If he fails to appear as 

ordered, he will be subject to arrest and contempt proceedings.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Daniel Hib at the address 

in the docket by a means that (assuming it is delivered) will provide proof of 

delivery. The U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of this order on Daniel Hib, 

who can be found at 8711 Blue Grass Drive,5 Stockton, California 95210 and shall 

file proof of service after doing so.

Because this case was improperly removed, it is REMANDED to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin, except as to issues of 

sanctions, contempt, or other discipline, over which the Court retains jurisdiction.6

/ / /

/ / /

 

5 Other documents give his address as 8722 Bluegrass Drive. The Marshals may 

serve him wherever he may be found.

6 The Court’s retention of jurisdiction over these issues is not intended to prevent 

the state court from also pursuing and imposing any sanctions, discipline, or 

contempt, as appropriate.

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv339-LAB (BGS)

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

Pending the order to show cause hearing, Daniel Hib is ORDERED not to 

remove or attempt to remove this case from state court again.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00339-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 03/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6