Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00896/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-00896-94/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

JAMES C. CASTLE AKA J. CHRISTOPHER 

CASTLE, et al, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 11-cv-896 YGR

ORDER UNSEALING DOCUMENTS FILED 

UNDER SEAL; DENYING REQUESTS TO SEAL, EXPUNGE, AND DISMISS; GRANTING MOTION 

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST JAMES C.

CASTLE AKA J. CHRISTOPHER CASTLE

(DKT. NOS. 889, 892, 898) 

On October 26, 2015, Defendant James C. Castle submitted to the Court a set of documents 

marked “Document Under Seal” and “Special Cause.” (Dkt. No. 889.) Based upon the label on the 

documents, the Clerk of the Court filed them on the docket in the instant matter and sealed them 

from public access. 

The documents included a letter from Castle addressed to the undersigned and to Magistrate 

Judge Maria-Elena James regarding “Notice of Intent to Harm.” (Id. at 3.) In the letter, Castle 

states: 

“It is equally clear that this COURT has no personal or subject matter jurisdiction 

as this action is public in nature, whilst I, the real man, am private. This is a case 

of mistaken identity. I, James Christopher Castle, the real man, am the 

grantor/beneficiary for the JAMES CHRISTOPHER CASTLE fiction.” 

(Id.) The letter goes on to state: 

Under the rules of Private Equity, I require the Court: 

1) A Chancellor to settle this entire matter (acceptance and return of true 

bill for settlement is previously in receipt by the CLERK and this COURT 

Case 4:11-cv-00896-YGR Document 900 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

and is appropriately “restricted” within 4:11-cv-00896-YGR, docket 867,1

Attachment 1) under the rules of chancery court equity; 

2) Appoint [Stephen C. Seto, counsel for Plaintiffs] to fulfill the 

outstanding fiduciary responsibilities of the remaining existing trusts; 

3) Seal the entire private, confidential, proprietary matter- especially any 

additional private documents publically listed in the docket of 4:11-cv00896-YGR; 

4) Expunge/cause to expunge all public reference, including but not 

limited to Public Access to Court Electronic Records and Internet of this 

entire matter. 

(Id. at 4.) The filing at Docket 889 also includes, among other things: a notary certificate, a 

document titled “durble [sic] power of attorney” referencing Castle, and a document titled 

“Declaration of Living Trust THE JAMES CHRISTOPHER CASTLE TRUST.” (Id. at 5-13.) 

 On December 1, 2015, Castle filed a document titled “Response and Order for a Motion to 

Dismiss.” (Dkt. No. 892.) In this filing, Castle indicates that he “disputes the entirety, all 1-356 

points, of this claim.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) Paragraph 8 of the filing states that “Respondent hereby files an 

ORDER FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction....” 

(Id. at ¶ 8.) 

 The Court having reviewed these filings now ORDERS as follows: 

 First, the documents filed under seal at Docket Nos. 867 and 889 are ordered UNSEALED. No 

good cause has been shown for filing these documents under seal. Indeed, no motion to seal was 

ever filed with respect to these documents. The Court observes no reasonable basis for sealing the 

documents. The Clerk of the Court is directed file them in the public docket forthwith. 

 Second, Castle has offered no factual or legal basis for his requests to seal the entire docket, 

to expunge the record of the case from the PACER system and the internet, to appoint Plaintiff’s 

counsel as a fiduciary of any trust; or to make any orders with respect to settlement by a chancellor. 

Thus the requests in the document filed at Docket No. 889 are DENIED. 

 Third, and finally, Castle’s assertion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and his 

request to dismiss the action, are without merit and are DENIED. Nothing in the documents filed by 

 1

 The document referenced at Docket No. 867 is a nearly identical “Notice of Intent to Harm” 

and accompanying documents submitted by “Lara Ann Castle,” who the Court believes to be 

Defendant Lara Karakasevic, wife of Defendant James Christopher Castle. This document was also 

filed by the Clerk of the Court, in part, under seal at the request of the filing party. No motion to seal 

or basis for sealing was offered in connection with this filing. 

Case 4:11-cv-00896-YGR Document 900 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Castle indicates that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of the claims in this action. 

Plaintiffs have alleged a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 

1331 because their third and fourth causes of action are brought under a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 

section 1962(c) and (d), the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and 

their remaining claims arise from the same case or controversy as the RICO claims, giving rise to 

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367. Castle has not offered any legal authority or 

evidentiary basis for finding that assertion of federal jurisdiction to be incorrect. His apparent 

contention that, as a “real man” he is not the same as the fictional, capitalized “JAMES 

CHRISTOPHER CASTLE,” and is therefore not subject to suit in a public forum, is nonsensical. 

 The Court notes that, on August 27, 2015, it struck Castle’s answer as a sanction in this 

action for his repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders. (Dkt. No. 818.) Since the entry of 

that Order, Castle has filed a September 10, 2015 “Notice of Interest (Dkt. No. 829)2; and the 

“Response and Order for a Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. No. 892). None of Castle’s filings has objected 

to the Court’s imposition of sanctions or striking of his answer, or otherwise sought leave to file an 

answer. Consequently, the Motion for Entry of Default at Docket No. 898 is GRANTED. The Clerk 

is directed to enter the default of Defendant James C. Castle, aka J. Christopher Castle. 

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 889, 892, and 898. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 11, 2016 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 2

 The Notice of Interest is largely unintelligible but seems to indicate that, in an action filed 

in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, that court was “appointed” as a 

“trustee” of the real property at interest in that litigation. (Dkt. No. 829.) The Notice of Interest’s 

relevance to or legal effect on the instant proceedings is not apparent. 

Case 4:11-cv-00896-YGR Document 900 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 3