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