Lodi Hotel Investors v. Luna

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 5 Motion to Remand; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys' fees. Clerk of Court to Remand this action to San Joaquin County Superior Court. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

LODI HOTEL INVESTORS,

9

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 12-CV-4255 YGR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND
REMANDING ACTION

10

vs.

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

MANUEL LUNA,
Defendants.

13
14
15

This case was removed from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, where it was pending as

16

an unlawful detainer action against pro se Defendant Manuel Luna (“Defendant”). Defendant filed a

17

“Notice of Removal (Under Federal Question Jurisdiction) Provisions of Title 28 USC, Section

18

1331. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Discrimination Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights” on August 13, 2012.

19

(Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) Defendant also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

20

Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.)

21

Defendant removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446, invoking this Court’s

22

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis that “Defendant strongly believes

23

he has been discriminated [sic] and that the Plaintiff has violated federal law, by doing so. … The

24

landlord is discriminating me [sic] because he doesn’t like me.” (Id. at ¶ 3.)

25

Plaintiff Lodi Hotel Investors, LP (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion to remand on the grounds

26

that Defendant has failed to establish the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction or any other

27

basis for federal jurisdiction. Defendant has filed no opposition to the motion as of the date of this

28

Order.

The Court GRANTS the motion for remand because no federal question is presented in this

1
2

action and DENIES the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.1 The complaint asserts only one state

3

law claim for unlawful detainer. Thus, there is no federal question.
In addition, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of

4
5

$75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction, nor has Defendant established that there is diversity of

6

citizenship between the parties.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.

8

Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

9

Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to the San Joaquin County Superior

10
11

Court.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 2 & 5.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Date: January 29, 2013

___________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that
this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument.
2