Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00026/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Forbes
Defendant
HSBC Bank USA, National Association
Plaintiff
Donald Mayes
Defendant

Document Text:

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, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS FORBES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00026-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND DENYING MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), plaintiff’s motions to remand this matter to Alameda 

County Superior court and to impose monetary sanctions are suitable for disposition without oral 

argument, and the hearing set for March 12, 2015 is vacated. The motion to remand will be 

granted, but sanctions will not be imposed.

Although the notice of removal is not entirely clear, it appears the removing party, pro per 

defendant Donald Mayes, originally contended removal was available on the basis of a federal 

question. Mayes, on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of additional defendants,1asserted 

jurisdiction lay under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and then alleged affirmative claims 

under that Act and under state law against plaintiff. The existence of federal question jurisdiction, 

 

1 Mayes is the only signatory to the notice of removal. Unless he is an attorney, which he does 

not purport to be, he may not appear on behalf of others.

Case 3:15-cv-00026-RS Document 24 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 15-cv-00026-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

however, is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air 

Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002). The rule applies equally to evaluating the 

existence of federal questions in cases brought initially in this Court and in removed cases. Id. at 

n. 2. Under that rule, a federal question must be presented by what is or should have been alleged 

in the complaint. Id. at 830. Thus, the fact that a federal question may be implicated through 

matters that could be raised by answer or counterclaim is insufficient. The complaint here is 

brought solely under California law, without reference to federal law. As such, it does not give 

rise to a right of removal.

Mayes’ opposition to remand effectively concedes removal on federal question grounds is 

improper, as he instead requests leave to amend the notice of removal to assert diversity of 

citizenship as its basis. Even assuming the notice could be amended at this juncture, removal on 

diversity grounds is unavailable to Mayes. There is no dispute that Mayes and other defendants 

are residents of California. The removal therefore would still contravene the provision of 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(b) that precludes removal where any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the 

action was brought (the “no-local-defendant rule”).

Plaintiff’s remand motion invokes the no-local-defendant rule with a supporting citation to 

Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005). In opposition, Mayes argues that Lincoln

supports removal jurisdiction here because it held remand had been improperly granted in that 

instance. The question in Lincoln, however, was whether a certain local non-party should have 

been joined as a co-defendant, thereby destroying removal jurisdiction on diversity grounds. 

While the court ruled the non-party was not subject to compulsory joinder, the very point of the 

analysis was that if the local entity had to be made party to the action, removal on diversity 

grounds would have been improper. The court expressly set out the rule: “The scales are not 

evenly balanced . . . . An in-state plaintiff may invoke diversity jurisdiction, but § 1441(b) bars 

removal on the basis of diversity if any “part[y] in interest properly joined and served as [a] 

Case 3:15-cv-00026-RS Document 24 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 15-cv-00026-RS

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

defendan[t] is a citizen of the State in which [the] action is brought.” 546 U.S. at 89-90. 

Accordingly, there is no basis for removal jurisdiction, and remand must be granted.2

It is far from clear that Mayes acted in good faith when filing the notice of removal in this 

action, particularly given that a prior attempt to remove to the Central District had been rejected. 

Nevertheless, in light of his pro se status and all the circumstances, no sanctions will be imposed 

at this juncture. Mayes is cautioned that any further attempts to remove this action to federal court

will expose him to sanctions. This action is hereby remanded to Alameda Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

2 While the issue need not be decided, plaintiff’s further argument that the removal was untimely 

likely also supports remand.

Case 3:15-cv-00026-RS Document 24 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3