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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?