Citibank, N.A. v. Ramirez, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. The complaint is remanded to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 9, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CITIBANK, N.A.,

No. C 12-2994 MMC

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION;
GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

11
v.
12
13

JUAN MARTINEZ,
Defendant.

14

/

15
16

Before the Court is plaintiff Citibank, N.A.’s (“Citibank”) Notice of Related Cases,
17
filed July 10, 2012, by which Citibank seeks an order remanding the above-titled case to
18
19

Sonoma County Superior Court.1 Defendant Juan Martinez (“Martinez”), who appears pro
se, has not filed a response.2 Having read and considered the notice, the Court rules as

20
follows.
21
In its complaint, Citibank alleges one claim, specifically, a state law claim for
22
unlawful detainer. In the notice of removal, Martinez asserts the complaint is removable
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Also before the Court is Martinez’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, filed
June 11, 2012. The Court finds Martinez has shown good cause to proceed in forma
pauperis, and accordingly, the Application is hereby GRANTED.
2

Because the notice was served on Martinez by mail, any opposition was due no
later than July 17, 2012. See Civil L.R. 7-11 (providing opposition to motion for
administrative relief must be “filed no later than 4 days after the motion has been filed”);
Civil L.R. 5-5(a)(2) (providing that where motion is served by mail, “3 days are added to the
time in which any party must respond”).

1
2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, he contends, a federal question is presented.
As Citibank correctly observes in its notice, the instant complaint was previously

3

removed to this Court by Martinez on January 25, 2012, and was remanded to state court

4

on March 12, 2012, when the undersigned adopted in full a Report and Recommendation

5

issued February 17, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James. See Citibank v.

6

Martinez, Civil Case No. 12-0403 MMC.3 In said Report and Recommendation, Magistrate

7

Judge James found no federal question was presented by the state law claim alleged in the

8

complaint. Additionally, Magistrate Judge James found Martinez, who is a citizen of

9

California, was not entitled to remove the case on diversity grounds, and, in any event,

10
11

Martinez had failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy.
On June 11, 2012, Martinez again removed the case to district court. In his second

12

notice of removal, Martinez fails to allege that any new circumstance has arisen since

13

March 12, 2012. See Kirkbride v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding “a

14

defendant who fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings can file a removal

15

petition when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for

16

removal”) (emphasis, internal quotation and citation omitted). Under such circumstances,

17

the Court finds, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge James’s Report and

18

Recommendation, filed February 17, 2012 in Civil Case No. 12-403, that Martinez has

19

failed to show, and cannot show, the Court has jurisdiction over Citibank’s complaint.

20
21
22
23

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,
in and for the County of Sonoma.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 9, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

3

By order filed July 24, 2012, the Court related the above-titled case to Case No.
12-0403 MMC.
2