CAH 2014-2 Borrower, LLC v. Salazar et al
Filing
4
ORDER: (1) Granting Motion to Proceed IFP; and (2) Remanding Case to State Court. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/6/2016.(cc: State Court)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
CAH 2014-2 BORROWER, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 16CV1254 BEN (BGS)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP
v.
ALONSO SALAZAR, et al.,
Defendants.
(2) REMANDING CASE TO STATE
COURT
14
15
16
On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff CAH-2014-2 Borrower, LLC filed an unlawful
17
detainer action in state court against Defendants Alonso Salazar and Lorena Salas. On
18
May 26, 2016, Defendant Salazar removed the action to this Court. Instead of paying the
19
filing fee, Salazar moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth
20
below, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to state
21
court.
22
23
24
DISCUSSION
I.
Motion to Proceed IFP
All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28
25
U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to prepay the entire fee
26
only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under
27
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),
1
16CV1254 BEN (BGS)
1
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement
of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to
pay such fees or give security therefor.
2
3
4
5
The information provided in Salazar’s affidavit reflects an inability to pay the fee
6
7
to pursue this action. The Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED.
8
II.
9
Sua Sponte Screening
An IFP complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
10
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines
11
that it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,”
12
or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” The sua
13
sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)
14
(en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)
15
(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).
Upon the Court’s screening of the Notice of Removal and Complaint, it is apparent
16
17
that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The allegations of the Complaint arise
18
solely under state law. It is an unlawful detainer action. Defendant cites the Fair Debt
19
Collection Practices Act in the Notice of Removal, however this is not a claim asserted in
20
the Complaint.1 This Court lacks federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
21
In addition, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, precluding diversity as
22
a basis for jurisdiction even if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332
23
(requiring that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000). The Complaint indicates that
24
25
26
27
1
Assuming it can even be asserted in an unlawful detainer action, this is, at best, a federal
defense. “A case may not be removed to the federal court on the basis of a federal
defense.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Quality of
Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
2
16CV1254 BEN (BGS)
1
2
the amount demanded is $10,000 or less.
When a case has been removed, the Court is obligated to remand it if the Court
3
finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. “If at any time before final judgment it appears
4
that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28
5
U.S.C. 1447(c). Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is
6
REMANDED.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2016
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
16CV1254 BEN (BGS)
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?