GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Amaya et al

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION. The above-titled action is remanded to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Alameda. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 21, 2013. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC FKA GMAC
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. C 13-865 MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING
ACTION

v.
JOSE AMAYA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Before the Court is the “Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b),”
filed February 26, 2013 by defendants Jose Amaya and Maria Elena Montano.1 Also
before the Court are defendants’ respective applications to proceed in forma pauperis.2
The instant notice of removal is the second attempt by said defendants to have the abovetitled case heard in district court. As set forth below, defendants’ second effort fares no
better than the first.
Plaintiff GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s (“GMAC”) sole claim in said case is a claim for
unlawful detainer, which claim arises under state law. On September 27, 2012, defendants
filed their first notice of removal, asserting a federal question was presented. See GMAC
Mortgage, LLC v. Amaya, C. 12-5028 YGR, Doc. No. 1. By order filed November 26, 2012,

27
1

A third defendant, Maria Isabel Flores, has not joined in the notice of removal.

2

The applications are hereby GRANTED.

28

1

the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found the district court lacked subject matter

2

jurisdiction and remanded the action to state court for the reason that “there is no diversity

3

jurisdiction” and defendants “failed to identify a basis for federal question jurisdiction.” See

4

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Amaya, C. 12-5028 YGR, Doc. No. 12.

5

The instant notice of removal is, in all respects, identical to defendants’ first notice of

6

removal, and this Court finds, for the reasons set forth in Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ order of

7

November 16, 2012, defendants have again failed to show, and cannot show, the federal

8

court has jurisdiction over GMAC’s complaint.

9
10

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of
California, in and for the County of Alameda.

11

The Clerk shall close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated: March 21, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2