September 6, 2013
Stardom Real Estate, LLC on behalf of Stardom Properties, LLC, Plaintiff,
Neil Johnston, Defendant.
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Following the Court's order remanding this action to state court (Doc. 9), Plaintiff Stardom Real Estate, LLC moved for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and Arizona law. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendant from filing further notices of removal without leave of the Court. Doc. 11.
Although this case has been remanded to state court, the Court retains jurisdiction over "collateral matter[s]... even after being divested of jurisdiction on the merits." Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding a district court retained jurisdiction after remand to entertain a motion for costs and fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). The Court nonetheless declines to award sanctions against Defendant, a pro se litigant who is not necessarily familiar with proper court procedures. Plaintiff intends to seek monetary sanctions against Defendant in state court for his allegedly frivolous filings (Doc. 11 at 1 n.1), and the Court concludes that sanctions are better addressed in the Court that has primary jurisdiction over this matter.
Plaintiff also requests a pre-filing injunction requiring Defendant to seek leave of court before filing any additional notices of removal. Such injunctions against pro se litigants are to be entered only upon "substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions." De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Because courts should remain open to all who seek to invoke their jurisdiction, such injunctions generally are entered only after a long history of abusive litigation practices. Two improvident notices of removal do not rise to that level. The Court will deny the request for a pre-filing injunction.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 11) is denied.