N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ASAP C OPY AND PRINT; ALI TAZHIB I, DB A ASAP C opy Print; NINA R . R INGGOLD, Esq.; LAW OFFIC ES OF NINA RINGGOLD, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C ANON B USINESS SOLUTIONS, INC .; DOR SEY & W HITNEY LLP; C ANON FINANC IAL SER

VIC ES, INC .; GENER AL ELEC T R IC C APITAL C ORPOR ATION; HEM AR

R OUSSO & HEALD, LLP, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55307 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10165-AB C
PJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

ASAP C OPY AND PRINT; ALI TAZHIB I, DB A ASAP C opy Print; NINA R INGGOLD, Esq.; LAW OFFIC ES OF NINA RINGGOLD, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. No. 13-55803 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10165-AB C
PJW 

# FIL ED
MAR 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C ANON B USINESS SOLUTIONS, INC .;

C ANON FINANC IAL SER V IC ES, INC .; GENER AL ELEC T R IC C APITAL C ORPOR ATION; HEM AR

R OUSSO & HEALD, LLP, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Audre y B . C ollins, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, M U R GUIA, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . The pla intiffs, ASAP C opy and Print a

nd Ali Taz hibi (c olle c tive ly “ A SAP” ),
and the ir attorne y , Nina

R inggold, a

p pe a l the distric t

c ourt’ s orde rs re m anding ASAP’ s la

wsuit to sta

te c ourt for la c k of jurisdic tion a n d sa nc tioning R

i nggold. The pla intiffs a

nd R inggold further a sse rt tha t the distric t c ourt judgeshould ha ve

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2re c u se d he rse lf due to a c onflic t of inte re st. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1447(d) a

n d § 1291. W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt in full. 1 1. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re m a n ding thepla intiffs’ c a s e ba c k to sta te c o urt. 28 U.S.C . § 1443, like othe r fe de ra l re m ova l sta tute s , pe rm its re m ova l only by de fe ndants in sta

te c ourt a c tions. Se e Shamroc k Oil &Gas C

orp. v . She e ts , 313 U.S. 100, 104-05 (1941). He re , it is indisputa

b le tha t ASAP w a s the pla intiff in the s tat e la

wsuit a t issue . None the le ss, ASAP a nd R inggold make a

num b e r of inve ntive and frivolous a

rgum e nts a s to why

the y should bec onside re d

de fa c to de fe nda nts for re m ova l purpose s. No a uthority , howe ve r, supports the proposition that a pla intiff or non–pa

rty in a sta te a c tion m ay be tra

nsform e d into a

de fe nda nt for purpose s of re m ova l sim ply be c a use an a d ve rse ruling is issue d a ga inst him or he r. Se e i d. at 104-07. Eve n if ASAP a

nd R inggold we re de fe nda nts e m powe re d to re m ove the sta te c a se , the distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha t 28 U.S.C . § 1443 (1) a

n d (2) fa ile d to provide re m ova l jurisdic tion. Unde r §1443(1), a de fe nda nt m ust show tha

t

1 W e a lso gra

nt the pa rtie s’ m otions for judic ia l notic e to the e xte nt tha t the y are c om patible with Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 201 a

nd “ d o[] not re quire the a c c e pta n c e of fa c ts subje c t to re a sona ble dispute .” Assoc iate d

Ge n. C ontrac tors of Am., San Die

go C hapte r, Inc . v . C

al. De p't of Transp. , 713 F.3d 1187, 1190 n.1 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting C alifornia e

x re l. RoN o, LLC v . Altus Fin. S.A. , 344 F.3d 920, 931 n.8 (9th C ir. 2003)). 3she “ is de nie d or c annot e nforc e ” c e rta in fe de ra l c ivil rights in sta te c ourts. Se e also J ohnson v . Mississippi , 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). ASAP a nd R inggold do not
m ake tha t showing. R

e m ova l unde r §1443(2), m e a nwhile , is only

ava i la ble if the de fe nda nt is a sta te or fe de ra l offic e r or a

pe rson a ssisting such a

n offic e r. C

ity of Gre e nw o od v . Pe ac oc k, 384 U.S. 808, 815, 824 n.22 (1966). The distric t c ourt
c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t ASAP a nd R inggold a

re not offic e rs a

nd we re not
a ssisting offic e rs within the m e aning of thesta tute . Fina lly , ASAP and R inggold’ s notic e of re m ova l wa s a l so untim e l y be c a use it wa s file d m ore tha

n 30 da y s a fte r the ir re c e ipt of a

“ c opy of a n am e nde d ple a ding, m otion, orde r or othe r pa pe r from whic h it m a

y first be a sc e rta i ne d tha

t the c a se ” ha s be c om e re m ova ble . 28 U.S.C . § 1446(b)(3). 2 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s im

position of sa

nc tions a ga inst Ringgold under Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 11. Afte r the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t R inggold’ s a

rgum e nts in fa

vor of re m ova l we re frivolous, R inggold repe ate d m any of those sa

m e argum e nts in he r m otion to vac ate the distric t c ourt’ s re m and orde r. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

warding one of the de fe nda nts

2 Furthe r, we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the pla intiffs’ m otion to va c ate the re m and orde r. B e c a use we a ffirm

the re m and orde r, we a lso a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing Ringgold’ s re que st for disa bility a c c om m odations a s m oot. 4attorne y ’ s fe e s for the tim e it spe nt opposing the m otion to vac ate . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 11(b)(1), (b)(2), (c ); se e also C oote r & Ge l l v . Hartmarx C orp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). 3. Fina lly , we c onc lude tha t the distric t

judge did not a

buse he r disc re tion in fa iling to re c use he rse lf from the c a se . Unde r 28 U.S.C . § 455(a ), a judge m ust
re c u se he rse lf in a

ny proc e e d ing in whic h he r im pa rtia lity is c o m prom ise d. Se e Unite d State s v . Holland

, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th C ir. 2008). Thede t e rm i native que stion is “

w he the r a re a sona ble pe rson with knowle dge of a ll the fa c ts would
c onc lude tha

t the judge ’ s im

pa rtia lity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d.” Id. (quoting C

le me ns v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt , 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th C ir. 2005)). ASAP
and R inggold ha

v e not shown tha

t a re a sona ble pe rson would be lie ve tha t the judge in this c a se ha d a

ny pe rsona l bia s or im

p rope r m otive to rule a ga inst the m . AFFIRM E D.

5