Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02933/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02933-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONORA ROGERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02933-RS 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 

NOT BE IMPOSED

This is now the fourth time one or more of the defendants have removed this action to 

federal court. See Order, dated May 13, 2015 in Case No. C 15-01222 RS, reciting history of 

removals. As explained in the prior orders, there has never been a valid basis for removal; 

defendants’ continued filing of removal notices in the face of those prior orders can no longer be 

explained as anything other than bad faith attempts to delay. The most recent order included the 

following language directed at defendants, underlined for emphasis:

Rogers, Mayes, Forbes, and any or all other persons acting with 

them or on their behalf are hereby expressly warned that any further 

notices of removal filed in this matter will lead to summary remand 

and will expose the removing parties to substantial monetary 

sanctions.

The latest notice of removal, filed by defendant Rogers, offers nothing new. It represents what 

appears to be blatant defiance of this Court’s prior orders. As there is still no legal basis for 

removal, the action is hereby remanded to Alameda Superior Court.

Case 3:15-cv-02933-RS Document 7 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-02933-RS

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

Notwithstanding remand of the action, this Court retains jurisdiction over the defendants 

for the sole purpose of determining whether to impose monetary sanctions and/or a pre-filing 

review order against them. Accordingly, no later than July 31, 2015, Rogers, Mayes, Forbes shall, 

jointly or separately, file briefs and/or declarations explaining any reasons they have why an order 

should not be entered against them (1) requiring any or all of them to pay monetary sanctions for 

filing frivolous notices of removal, and/or (2) imposing a pre-filing review requirement that would 

prevent them from filing any further notices of removal in this court connected with this case, 

without prior court approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02933-RS Document 7 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2