MSB Homes LLC et al v. Williams et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT; DENYING 2 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND TERMINATING AS MOOT 7 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/9/2018. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
MSB HOMES LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
9
10
v.
MINNIE C. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 17-cv-06830-BLF
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND
CASE TO STATE COURT;
DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
AND TERMINATING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
[RE: ECF 2, 5, 7]
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Defendant Bruce C. Williams (“Mr. Williams”), proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful
13
detainer action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal district court on the basis of
14
federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal ¶ 3, ECF 1. Mr. Williams also filed an
15
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). IFP Application, ECF 2. The case
16
initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, who issued a report and
17
recommendation (“R&R”) that the action be remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter
18
jurisdiction and that the motion to proceed IFP be denied. R&R, ECF 5. The case thereafter was
19
reassigned to the undersigned judge. Order Reassigning Case, ECF 6. Shortly after reassignment,
20
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand which is set for hearing on April 26, 2018. Motion, ECF 7.
21
A party may file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of a
22
case within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. §
23
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
24
magistrate judge’s disposition as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.
25
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Neither § 636 nor Rule 72 prescribes a standard of review when no party objects.
26
However, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72 indicate that when no timely objection is
27
filed, the district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
28
in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983).
1
The clear error standard has been adopted by numerous district courts within the Ninth Circuit.
2
See, e.g., United States v. Mendez, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1006 (D. Ariz. 2017) (“The Court
3
reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the R&R.”); Hayden v. United States, 147 F.
4
Supp. 3d 1125, 1126-27 (D. Or. 2015) (reviewing magistrate judge’s R&R for clear error where
5
no objections filed); Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC v. DC Prop. & Loans, Inc., No. C 13-4732
6
SBA, 2014 WL 5474584, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2014) (same).
7
No objections to the R&R have been filed and the deadline to object has elapsed. See
Certificate of Service, ECF 5-1 (showing mail service of R&R on Mr. Williams on December 7,
9
2017). Accordingly, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error. The Court finds none. Mr.
10
Williams appears to assert that this Court has federal question jurisdiction based on his own
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
affirmative claim against Plaintiffs under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974
12
(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. However, the complaint itself asserts only a state law claim
13
for unlawful detainer, which does not implicate RESPA or any other federal statute. As stated in
14
the R&R, federal question jurisdiction arises only if the complaint alleges a claim “arising under
15
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal subject matter
16
jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover
17
Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). This Court likewise agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that Mr.
18
Williams’ IFP application must be denied because he did not provide all of the financial
19
information necessary to evaluate his IFP application.
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
(1)
Judge van Keulen’s R&R (ECF 5) is ADOPTED;
22
(2)
Mr. Williams’ IFP application (ECF 2) is DENIED;
23
(3)
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF 7) is TERMINATED AS MOOT;
24
(4)
The case is REMANDED to the Santa Clara County Superior Court; and
25
(5)
The Clerk shall close the file.
26
27
28
Dated: January 9, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
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?