Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06991/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06991-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert McDonald
Plaintiff
Murali R. Nair
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MCDONALD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MURALI R. NAIR,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06991-MMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND AND DECLARE 

DEFENDANT VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Before the Court is plaintiff Robert McDonald’s (“McDonald”) motion, filed March 

25, 2019, seeking an order remanding the instant action to the Superior Court of 

California, in and for the County of Shasta, and declaring defendant Murali R. Nair

(“Nair”) to be vexatious litigant. Having read and considered the motion, the Court 

hereby rules as follows. 

By order filed February 11, 2019, the above-titled action was remanded to the 

Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Shasta. (See Doc. 10 (February 11 

Order) at 1:22-23.) Accordingly, to the extent McDonald seeks remand, the motion is 

denied as moot.1 

To the extent McDonald seeks an order declaring Nair a vexatious litigant, 

McDonald has not, for the reasons stated below, demonstrated such an order is 

warranted. 

 

1 Although the instant action has been remanded, the Court retains jurisdiction over 

“collateral issues . . . even after being divested of jurisdiction on the merits” and, 

consequently, may determine whether Nair may be declared a vexatious litigant. See

Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 3:18-cv-06991-MMC Document 15 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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

At the outset, the Court notes that McDonald, in support of his request, relies on 

section 391 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Said statute, is not, however,

applicable to cases pending in federal court. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391.1 (limiting 

application of § 391 to “litigation pending in any court of this state”). 

Although there are cases in which federal courts have deemed removing 

defendants to be vexatious litigants, the cases are distinguishable on their facts. In 

particular, in each of those cases, the removing defendant was declared a vexatious 

litigant after having repeatedly, and frivolously, removed the same action. See, e.g., JWI 

Secured Fund, LLC v. Torres, 2019 WL 1095794, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019) 

(declaring defendant vexatious litigant where he sought to remove same unlawful 

detainer action three times). Here, by contrast, McDonald’s request is premised on his

assertion that Nair has been the plaintiff in numerous lawsuits. (See Mot. at 4:13-14.) 

Although the Court may consider Nair’s “pattern of state court litigation,” McDonald 

must show the cases filed by Nair in state court were “patently without merit” or filed with 

“an intent to harass.” See Ringgold-Lockart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 

1064 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding, “[b]efore a district court issues a pre-filing injunction . . . the 

court [must] make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the 

litigant’s actions” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). McDonald, however, has 

failed to provide any information about the cases filed by Nair and, consequently, has 

failed to make the requisite showing.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, McDonald’s motion is hereby 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2019 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06991-MMC Document 15 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 2