1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-00671-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO

9 v. DEFENDANT EQUAAN SMITH

10 EQUAAN D SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 This case arises out of years of litigation following Wells Fargo’s foreclosure of a home 14 owned by Defendant Equaan Smith in which Defendant Russell Robinson, her former attorney, 15 owns a four percent interest. In 2020, Wells Fargo brought an action for declaratory relief, 16 cancellation of instrument, quiet title, and slander of title in the Alameda County Superior Court. 17 See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. VS Smith, No. RG20051563. Two years later, the parties filed a 18 stipulated dismissal following a settlement whereby judgment was entered in Wells Fargo’s favor. 19 Since this time, Defendants have removed the action to this court on five occasions, seeking to 20 prevent the superior court from ruling on pending motions to enforce the judgment and/or convey 21 possession of the subject property to Wells Fargo. See Case No. 23-3090; Case No. 23-6135; Case 22 No. 24-3344; Case No. 25-671. On each occasion, the Court has remanded the action to the 23 superior court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Case No. 23-3090, Dkt. No. 29; Case No. 24 23-6135, Dkt. No. 30; Case No. 24-3344, Dkt. No. 20; Case No. 24-9335, Dkt. No. 11; Case No. 25 25-671, Dkt. No. 12. Eleven days after the Court most recently remanded Mr. Robinson’s 26 removal of the superior court action and issued a vexatious litigant order prohibiting Mr. Robinson 27 from again removing the superior court action without federal court approval, Case No. 24-9335, 1 No. 1. 2 The Court has previously warned Ms. Smith that should she, like Mr. Robinson, engage in 3 successive removals of the superior court action without a good faith basis for alleging subject 4 || matter jurisdiction, the Court would utilize its inherent power to file “restrictive pre-filing orders” 5 enjoining vexatious litigants “with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation” from filing further 6 actions or papers. Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999). Ms. 7 Smith nonetheless removed this action based on the identical improper allegations of federal 8 || question jurisdiction as invoked in her prior removal; namely, that Wells Fargo is “engaged and 9 may be engaging in unlawful debt reporting and/or collection activity” in violation of the Federal 10 Debt Collection Practices Act. (Compare Dkt. No. 1 at 2 with Case No. 24-3344, Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) 11 The Court previously held these allegations do not establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 12 || (Case. No. 24-3344, Dkt. No. 20.) Although the Court ordered Ms. Smith to appear on February 13 6, 2024 and explain her successive removal of this action, neither she nor her counsel Mr. Jeffrey 14 || Neustadt appeared. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) 3 15 Accordingly, Ms. Smith is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as why she should not be a 16 || declared a vexatious litigant and a prefiling review order entered prohibiting her from filing any

17 further notices of removal of the action in the Alameda County Superior Court, Wells Fargo Bank, 18 || NA. v. Smith, No. RG20051563. Ms. Smith shall file a written response to this Order by 19 || February 27, 2025 and Ms. Smith and her counsel Mr. Jeffrey Neustadt shall appear in 20 || person to show cause on March 6, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 21 San Francisco, California. 22 Failure to file a written response and appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing may result 23 || in entry of a vexatious litigant order without further notice. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 7, 2025 ie Set D 27 / □

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

28 United States District Judge