Arangure v. Paul et al

Filing 3

ORDER Denying Leave to Proceed IFP and Remanding to State Case. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/27/2015.(cc: State Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 NORMA ARANGURE, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 Case No.: 15CV1652 BEN (JLB) ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP AND REMANDING TO STATE COURT v. DANTON EUGENE PAUL and MICHELLE PAUL, Defendant. 14 15 On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff Norma Arangure, Trustee of the Norma Arangure 16 Living Trust, filed an unlawful detainer action in state court against Defendants Danton 17 Eugene Paul and Michelle Paul. (Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1].) On July 24, 2015, 18 Michelle Paul removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Instead of paying the filing 19 fee, Paul moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) For the reasons set 20 forth below, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED to state 21 court. 22 The Court is obligated to screen all cases filed IFP to determine if the case “fails to 23 state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez 24 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (finding “section 1915(e) not 25 only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 26 fails to state a claim”). “A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at 27 the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous 1 15CV1652 BEN (JLB) 1 or without merit.” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). Upon the Court’s screening of the Notice of Removal and state court Complaint, it 2 3 is apparent that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The allegations of the 4 Complaint arise solely under state law. It is an unlawful detainer action. Defendants cite 5 the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act in their Notice of Removal, however this is, at 6 best, a federal defense.1 “A case may not be removed to the federal court on the basis of 7 a federal defense.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Quality 8 of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 In addition, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, precluding diversity as 10 a basis for jurisdiction even if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 11 (requiring that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000). That state court Complaint 12 alleges that the amount demanded is $25,000 or less. 13 When a case has been removed, the Court is obligated to remand it if the Court 14 finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. “If at any time before final judgment it appears 15 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 16 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is 17 remanded. 18 Paul’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: July 27, 2015 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 In finding the PTFA does not provide a private right of action, the Ninth Circuit noted that it might be “intended to provide a defense in state eviction proceedings rather than a basis for offensive suits in federal court.” Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). 2 15CV1652 BEN (JLB)

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?