Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01621/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01621-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

- 1 - 10cv1621 WQH (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK USA; NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR

MANA 2007-OR2,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv1621 WQH (POR)

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

ROMUALDO V. CABAL,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

On April 10, 2010, Plaintiffs HSBC Bank USA and National Association as Trustee for

MANA 2007-OR2 initiated this action by filing their Complaint in California Superior Court

for the County of San Diego. See Doc. # 1 at 11. On August 3, 2010, Defendant Romualdo

V. Cabal, proceeding pro se, filed his Notice of Removal removing this case from state court

to this Court. Id. at 1.

The Complaint includes a single claim for Unlawful Detainer under California law. See

id. at 11. The Complaint states that damages are less than $10,000. Id. Defendant states in

his Notice of Removal that the removal is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446. Id.

at 1. Defendant alleges he has Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment defenses or counterclaims.

Id. at 2. 

On August 10, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause finding that Defendant

Case 3:10-cv-01621-WQH-POR Document 7 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv1621 WQH (POR)

failed to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over this action. (Doc. # 5). Defendant was

ordered to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the state court for lack of

jurisdiction by September 10, 2010. Id. at 2. The Court explained, “If Defendant fails to

respond or fails to establish that the Court has jurisdiction, the case will be remanded to state

court.” Id. 

On September 10, 2010, Defendant’s Response to Order to Show Cause was timely

filed. (Doc. # 6). Defendant asks the Court to overlook any defects in his pleading or removal

because he is proceeding pro se and is not a native English speaker. Id. at 1-4. He also states

that the Order to Show Cause is premature and requests a hearing. Id. at 2-3. Defendant

contends that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because his case falls within a civil

rights exception to the rule requiring a well pleaded complaint. Id. 

In his notice of removal, Defendant contends, “This Petition presents the important

question of whether the San Diego Superior Courts in particular and State of California

Superior Courts in general, routinely demonstrate bias, by depriving Homeowners facing

forcible evictions of due process, by granting judgments to creditors without a fair review of

all the Homeowner’s issues.” (Doc. # 4 at 2). Defendant contends that “California Consumers

who have been victims of financial fraud” have a right to “fair and unbiased hearings, in

accordance with: Due Process of Law, as guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendment[s]

to the United States Constitution.” Id.

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides, “If at any time before final judgment

it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

Id. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 further provides:

Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a

State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United

States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such

State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the

United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof; (2) For any act

under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for

refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such

law. 

Id.

Case 3:10-cv-01621-WQH-POR Document 7 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 10cv1621 WQH (POR)

In State of Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966), the Supreme Court held:

[W]e conclude that the phrase ‘any law providing for * * * equal civil

rights’ must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights

stated in terms of racial equality. Thus, the defendants’ broad contentions

under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment cannot support a valid claim for removal under § 1443, because

the guarantees of those clauses are phrased in terms of general application

available to all persons or citizens, rather than in the specific language of

racial equality that § 1443 demands.

Id. at 792. 

The Supreme Court in Rachel explained that even where a claim is based on a law that

provides for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality, a petition for removal must

allege, “not merely that rights of equality would be denied or could not be enforced, but that

the denial would take place in the courts of the State[, and that] . . . the denial [must] be

manifest in a formal expression of state law.” Id. at 803. The Court explained that “removal

is not warranted by an assertion that a denial of rights of equality may take place and go

uncorrected at trial. Removal is warranted only if it can be predicted by reference to a law of

general application that the defendant will be denied or cannot enforce the specified federal

rights in the state courts.” Id. at 800. Therefore a litigant “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.” People of State of California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970)

Defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims do not assert claims under laws

providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality because they are generally

applicable. Even if Defendant’s claims were based on laws providing for specific civil rights

stated in terms of racial equality, his request for removal would fail because he has not alleged

that the denial of his federal rights can be predicted from a state statute or a constitutional

provision but rather asserts that California state courts “systematically trample[]” litigant’s

rights in unlawful detainer actions.” (Doc. # 6 at 3). This is insufficient to allow removal

under § 1443. See Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792-800; Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636 (“Bad experiences

with the particular court in question will not suffice.”) 

The Court has previously found Defendant failed to establish that this Court has

Case 3:10-cv-01621-WQH-POR Document 7 Filed 09/21/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 10cv1621 WQH (POR)

jurisdiction over this action, and after reviewing Defendant’s Response to the Order to Show

Cause, the Court will not alter this determination. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this action

shall be REMANDED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the Superior Court of the State

of California, County of San Diego, North County Division, where it was originally filed and

assigned Case No. 37-2010-00038044-CL-UD-NC.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 21, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01621-WQH-POR Document 7 Filed 09/21/10 Page 4 of 4