Repeated Unauthorized Removals Can Justify a Tailored Filing Injunction

HSBC Bank USA v. Dae Sung Shim | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | September 21, 2026

Precedential status: The opinion is expressly not precedential. It affirms the application of existing rules; it does not establish a binding new rule for future panels.

Introduction

After HSBC obtained a New Jersey foreclosure judgment, defendant Sung Ho Mo repeatedly tried to move the case from state to federal court. Earlier removal attempts had failed, and a federal judge had warned him to seek written permission before filing another removal concerning the property. Mo nevertheless filed a new notice of removal, this time invoking the civil-rights removal statute. The appeal concerned whether the District Court could dismiss that unauthorized filing and impose restrictions on his future federal filings.

Summary of the Opinion

The Third Circuit affirmed. Mo had filed without the permission required by the District Court’s unappealed October 2023 order. His attempt to challenge that order through an appeal from its later enforcement failed. The court also upheld the filing injunction: Mo’s repeated litigation supplied grounds for it, he received notice and an opportunity to respond, and the restrictions left a means to present legitimate claims. The court affirmed the denial of reconsideration and allowed HSBC to supplement the appellate materials.

Analysis

Earlier proceedings and authorities cited

• United States v. Mo supplied background about Mo’s 2016 bank-fraud conviction. It was not a source of the rule governing the filing injunction.
• Mo v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Assoc. was the October 2023 District Court decision warning Mo to obtain permission before bringing further specified filings. HSBC Bank, USA v. Shim was a separate District Court decision rejecting an earlier diversity-based removal as untimely and contrary to the forum-defendant rule. The opinion also noted an earlier Third Circuit appeal that left the remand undisturbed and affirmed a fee award because the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis, applying Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. Together, these proceedings explained why Mo had notice of the problem with repeated removals.
• Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC supplied de novo review for the dismissal. United States v. Dupree, citing Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, supplied abuse-of-discretion review for denial of reconsideration; In re Packer Ave. Assocs. supplied that standard for the filing injunction.
• Hong Mai Sa v. Doe supported declining to revisit a previously unchallenged filing injunction through an appeal from its enforcement. Marshak v. Treadwell provided the analogous principle that a party cannot contest an order’s substantive merits in proceedings concerning compliance with that order. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. called for particular deference to a district court’s interpretation of its own order.
• Brow v. Farrelly supplied the controlling three-part framework for a filing injunction: circumstances such as continuous meritless and repetitive litigation, notice and an opportunity to show cause, and restrictions narrowly tailored to the circumstances. In re Oliver and Abdul-Akbar v. Watson supported preserving access for legitimate claims while screening abusive submissions.
• Orabi v. Att'y Gen. and In re Congoleum Corp. supported the court’s decision to take judicial notice of materials from Mo’s criminal case when granting HSBC’s request to supplement the appellate materials.

Legal reasoning

The court first separated the validity of the October 2023 warning from Mo’s compliance with it. That order required advance permission for another removal. Mo did not appeal it and did not obtain permission. Although the warning could have been more explicit about dismissal as a consequence, the Third Circuit deferred to the District Court’s interpretation of its order and found its enforcement justified in light of Mo’s litigation history.

The injunction independently satisfied Brow v. Farrelly. Mo had repeatedly attempted to remove the foreclosure action and made filings the court considered frivolous and costly. After the earlier warning, the District Court issued a specific order to show cause, and Mo responded. The resulting restrictions required court permission and a certification addressing, among other things, whether a proposed filing was frivolous, repetitive, or contrary to a court order. The Third Circuit regarded that screening mechanism as appropriately directed at abusive filings rather than a complete bar to legitimate claims.

The decision rests on those procedural and conduct-based grounds. It does not decide whether Mo could have satisfied the substantive requirements for civil-rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The District Court also reiterated that his latest removal was untimely.

Potential impact

Because the disposition is nonprecedential, it does not bind future Third Circuit panels. It nonetheless illustrates how courts may respond to serial attempts to relitigate a state-court matter: an unappealed filing restriction can be enforced, and persistent abusive filings can support a carefully limited prefiling-review requirement. It also underscores the safeguards needed before imposing one—specific notice, an opportunity to respond, and a route for legitimate filings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Removal

A procedure for transferring a case filed in state court to federal court when federal law permits it. Citing a new statute does not itself cure procedural defects or override a court order.

Forum-defendant rule

A restriction on removing certain diversity cases when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit was filed. It was one reason the earlier removal failed.

Collateral attack

An effort to challenge an earlier order indirectly in later proceedings, rather than through an appeal of that order.

Filing injunction

A court-imposed requirement to obtain permission before making specified filings. Here, the court upheld a screening requirement, not a categorical prohibition on legitimate claims.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Mo’s unauthorized removal and the tailored filing injunction. The opinion’s central lesson is procedural: repeated abusive filings may warrant prefiling review, but the litigant must receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to present legitimate claims. Its force is illustrative, not binding precedent.