Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02181/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02181-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvester Bradford
Defendant
Deutsche Bank Trust Company America As Trustee
Plaintiff
Darrick D. Sterling
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

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY 

AMERICA AS TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRICK D. STERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02181-RS 

ORDER

This is one of many files opened when Sylvester Bradford, aka John Robinson, has 

purported to remove an underlying unlawful detainer action from Alameda County Superior 

Court. See Case Nos. 12-4971 RS, 12-1077 RS, 13-03020 RS, C 13-3564 RS, and C 14-2326 RS1 

As explained in each prior order of remand, and in the Report and Recommendation issued by the 

magistrate judge in this matter, this court lacks jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer 

proceedings.2

 

1

 While more than one state court case number appears in the record, there is no apparent dispute 

that all the matters relate to the same basic attempt by the plaintiff to obtain possession of the 

subject real property. Additionally, it appears there may have been at least one earlier related 

removal attempt by Bradford. See Case No. 12-0744 CRB.

2

 Bradford objected to the Report and Recommendation on grounds that he had filed a response 

to the underlying Order to Show Cause, which apparently had been overlooked. Nothing in that 

response, however, alters the fact that removal jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions like this 

simply is not available.

Case 3:14-cv-02181-RS Document 15 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 14-cv-02181-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

Bradford, along with his co-defendant Darrick Sterling who joined in the ostensible 

removal, subsequently filed a purported dismissal of this action under Rule 41 of the Rules of 

Civil Procedure, as he has done previously in some of the other case files. See, e.g., C 14-2326 

RS. To the extent that filing is intended to be an abandonment of the efforts to remove the 

unlawful detainer action, it is accepted. As Bradford and Sterling are defendants, not plaintiffs, 

their “notice of dismissal” is ineffective to terminate the underlying unlawful detainer proceeding, 

in the event it has not otherwise been dismissed by act of the plaintiff or the state court.

Without holding that opening of the present case file represented an effective removal of 

the unlawful detainer in the first instance, this order shall serve as a remand, in the event 

jurisdiction ever vested here. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the Alameda County 

Superior Court, with reference to its case number RG 11-594238, and that court may proceed as it 

deems appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02181-RS Document 15 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2