Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00297-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, as Trustee for DSLA

Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-AR4,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv297-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING RENEWED

MOTION FOR REMAND

vs.

CELESTE LOUDON, DAVID LOUDON,

Defendants.

On February 7, 2014, Defendants removed this action from state court, citing diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiff Deutsche Bank filed a procedurally defective motion for remand, in the

process violating several local rules and the Court’s own standing order, and making

inapposite arguments about the lack of a federal question. The motion was denied, but the

order of denial pointed out procedural defects in the removal and gave Deutsche Bank leave

to move ex parte to file a timely motion for remand on those grounds.

Instead of following the Court’s guidance, Deutsche Bank on March 7 obtained a

hearing date for a motion to remand, representing that the motion would be filed on March

10. Instead of doing what it promised, however, Deutsche Bank waited until March 14 to file

the motion. This violates the Court’s own Standing Order, § 4(a) (“Regardless of the motion

hearing date, the moving party shall file all moving papers within three court days of

obtaining the hearing date from chambers, or within the time provided by Civil Local Rule

- 1 - 14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 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

7.1(e)(1), whichever is earlier.”) as well as Civil Local rule 7.1(e)(1) (“Unless the court

shortens time and except as otherwise specified in Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.6, any notice of

motion, application or notice of other matter requiring the court's ruling, plus all necessary

supporting documents, will require a minimum filing date of twenty-eight (28) days prior to

the date for which the matter is noticed.”) The date provided in the notice of removal

therefore is untimely, and would not allow Defendants the minimum time to respond provided

for under the rule. Furthermore, because the motion was filed over 30 days after removal,1

its objections to procedural irregularities are all untimely, and therefore waived. See 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 935–36 (9 Cir. 2006) th

(violation of § 1441(b) is procedural and a waivable defect).

Deutsche Bank’s motion for remand does make jurisdictional arguments, and of

course these are not waived; the Court must remand a removed case if at any time before

final judgment it appears jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). That being said, such

a challenge is superfluous. The Court, seeing that Deutsche Bank had failed to move for

remand, carried out its responsibility to examine its own jurisdiction sua sponte, see

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9 Cir. 2011) (en banc), and has th

issued an order to show cause, requiring Defendants to show that jurisdiction exists. The 2

motion makes only one apposite jurisdictional argument, which is covered in greater depth

in the order. In addition, the order requires a shorter response time from Defendants, as well

as less briefing.

The only issue raised in the motion that needs to be considered separately is

Deutsche Bank’s request for sanctions. Deutsche Bank argues that they filed a frivolous

notice of removal without notifying either Deutsche Bank or the state court, and that this

resulted in the state court holding an unlawful detainer trial and granting judgment for

Deutsche Bank after removal to this Court. The motion attaches documentation to

 The Court’s order denying the first motion for remand pointed out the 30-day time

1

limit.

The order was signed before, but docketed after, Deutsche Bank filed its motion for 2

remand, so in effect the order and the motion “crossed in the mail.”

- 2 - 14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 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

substantiate this, and argues that Defendants filed the notice of removal solely for the

improper purpose of delay. This falls short of a meritorious sanctions motion, however. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), “[a] motion for sanctions must be made separately from any

other motion . . . .” Including a sanctions request in a motion for remand doesn’t comply with

this requirement. This subsection imposes the additional requirement that such a motion

must be served on the opposing party before filing, and that the opposing party has 21 days

to make an appropriate correction.

The Court may, of course, sanction Defendants sua sponte, after giving them notice

and an opportunity to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). While they were wrong in failing

to notify either the state court or Deutsche Bank of the removal, the Court is inclined to

attribute this to confusion about legal requirements, and is disinclined to sanction them sua

sponte. Parties in their situation who were intent on causing delay would done what they

could to prevent the state court from proceeding with the case, instead of allowing it to hold

a trial and enter judgment.

Because the motion for remand was untimely filed in violation of local rules and the

Court’s order, and because it is duplicative of the Court’s order to show cause, it is DENIED.

In view of Deutsche Bank’s repeated failures to follow procedural requirements, which

have resulted in numerous procedural snarls, Deutsche Bank’s counsel is admonished to

review this District’s Civil Local Rules, its electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies &

Procedures Manual, and the Court’s own Standing Order in Civil Cases. The Court expects

that this admonition will be sufficient to prevent future violations.

This order does not relieve Defendants of their obligation to respond to the Court’s

order to show cause issued March 13. Should they fail to show cause as ordered, this action

will be remanded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv297

Case 3:14-cv-00297-LAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 3