Paredes Worrell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 8

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Margaret A Paredes Worrell. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 15, 2012. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2012: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (ofr, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 MARGARET ANN PAREDES WORRELL, 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 15 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, CHASE SUCCESSOR BY MERGER WITH WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A., Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C 12-04331 PSG ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Re: Docket Nos. 2) 17 Plaintiff Margaret Ann Paredes Worrell (“Worrell”) proceeding pro se applies to proceed in 18 forma pauperis. Having reviewed the papers, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case be reassigned to a District Judge with the 20 recommendation that the IFP be denied. 1 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 This court is ordering reassignment to a District Judge because, absent consent of all parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See 28 U.S.C. §636(c); Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988). The Ninth Circuit has left open the question of whether a remand to state court is a “pretrial matter” which may be referred to a magistrate judge for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). See Nasca v. Peoplesoft, 160 F.3d 578, 580 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We express no opinion regarding [the magistrate judge’s] authority [to remand the case] had the matter been referred under 28 U.S.C. §636(b).”). It nonetheless appears that all other appellate courts that have addressed the issue have found that remand is not merely a pretrial matter. See, e.g., In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 145-46 (3d Cir. 1998) (finding that a remand order is the “functional equivalent” of an order of dismissal for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A)). Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, the court proceeds by way of a recommendation and reassignment order. 1 Case No.: C 12-04331 PSG ORDER 1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a 2 claim and the unlawful detainer action be remanded to state court based on lack of subject matter 3 or diversity jurisdiction. 4 Granting or refusing permission to proceed in forma pauperis is a matter within the sound 5 discretion of the trial court. 2 It is the court’s duty to examine any IFP application “to determine 6 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 7 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” 3 Moreover, a 8 federal court must dismiss a case such as this if the court determines that the case is: (1) frivolous; 9 (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 defendant who is immune from such relief. 4 11 Here, Worrell filed a complaint and removed Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.’s (“JP 12 Morgan”) unlawful detainer action to federal court. Both were filed under the same case number. 13 In the complaint, Worrell alleges that she has been deprived access to case files and transcripts in 14 state court. She appears to suggest that the case files at issue are related to the unlawful detainer 15 action. Upon review of the sparse allegations supporting this claim, it appears that the complaint is 16 frivolous and should be dismissed. Worrell also removed the unlawful detainer action to federal 17 court but it should be remanded because this court has neither subject matter nor diversity 18 jurisdiction over Worrell’s claims. It is well-settled that federal courts do not have federal question 19 jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, where federal law does not create the cause of action 20 and Worrell’s right to relief does not depend on a resolution of a question of federal law. 5 The 21 court further finds no diversity jurisdiction based on JP Morgan’s unlawful detainer action, which 22 23 2 See Shobe v. People of State of California, 362 F.2d 545, 545 (9th Cir. 1966). 3 Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 4 See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). 24 25 26 5 27 28 See, e.g., Eden Housing Mgmt., Inc. v. Muhammad, No. C 07-4325 SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90294, 2007 WL 4219397, at *2-3 (no federal question on the face of unlawful detainer complaint); Oritz, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86925, 2008 WL 4771932, at *1. 2 Case No.: C 12-04331 PSG ORDER 1 was filed in the superior court as a case of “limited civil jurisdiction” amounting to less than 2 $10,000 in controversy. 3 In sum, the undersigned finds that there is no basis for jurisdiction over Worrell’s complaint 4 and JP Morgan’s unlawful detainer action in this court and therefore no basis on which to grant 5 Worrell’s IFP application. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 11/15/2012 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: C 12-04331 PSG ORDER

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?