MP APW LLC v. Madrigal et al

Filing 7

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/8/15 ORDERED that 2 , 3 Motions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied without prejudice. The hearing date of February 4, 2015 on Motion to remand is vaca ted. RECOMMENDING that 5 Motion to remand be granted and this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. F&R referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MP APW LLC, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2905 KJM CKD PS

v.

ORDER and FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

EDWARD MADRIGAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This action was removed from state court.1 Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly

18

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

19

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

20

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal

21

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039

22

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

23

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal

24
25

question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a

26

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar

27
28

1

Plaintiffs have noticed for hearing on February 4, 2015 a motion to remand. Because oral
argument would not be of material assistance, the hearing date will be vacated.
1

1

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the removal

2

petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action,

3

and the state court action is titled as such. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of

4

establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally

5

Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).

6
7

Defendants have filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will
recommend remand of this action, the motions will be denied without prejudice.

8

Plaintiff has requested payment of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the

9

motion to remand. Given defendants’ impoverished state as demonstrated by their motions to

10

proceed in forma pauperis, the court finds an award of expenses is not appropriate in the

11

circumstances of this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“order remanding the case may require

12

payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

13

removal”).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 3) are denied without

16

prejudice;

17

2. The hearing date of February 4, 2015 on plaintiffs’ motion to remand is vacated; and

18

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

19

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 5) be granted and the above-entitled action be

20

summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento; and

21

2. No award of costs be made.

.

22

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

23

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

24

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

25

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

26

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

27

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

28

/////
2

1

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

2

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

Dated: January 8, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6

4 MPAPW-madrigal.remud.ifp.costs

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3