Sotcher Company v. Valadez et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Remanding the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/10/14. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Superior Court)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SOTCHER COMPANY,

12

CASE NO. 14cv2644-LAB (DHB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; AND

vs.
13
14

MAXIMO VALADEZ, et al.,
ORDER OF REMAND

15

Defendants.

16
17

Defendant Linda Eyler, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from

18

state court on November 6, 2014. The notice of removal argues that the Court has

19

jurisdiction because the answer raises a defense based on federal law. Eyler also filed a

20

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

21

The Court is obliged to examine its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, B.C. v.

22

Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999), and to remand any removed

23

action over which it lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Under the well-pleaded

24

complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction only exists when the complaint is based on

25

federal law; federal questions in defenses or counterclaims are insufficient. Vaden v.

26

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59–60, 70 (2009). Here, the claims arise under state law, so

27

no federal question jurisdiction exists. The parties are not diverse and no other basis for the

28

Court’s exercise of jurisdiction is apparent.

-1-

14cv2644

1

Eyler’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis appears to be incomplete,

2

because it lists an income that should be easily enough to pay her listed expenses with

3

plenty left over to pay the filing fee. The motion also does not account for Eyler’s co-

4

defendants and their income and assets. In any case, because this case is being remanded,

5

the motion is moot.

6
7
8
9

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot, and this action is
REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 10, 2014

10
11

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv2644