Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04104/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIANO TREJO,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-cv-04104-HRL

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE REMAND TO 

STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3

Mariano Trejo removed this unlawful detainer action from the Monterey County Superior 

Court. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons stated below, the 

undersigned grants the IFP application, but nonetheless recommends that this matter be remanded 

to the state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the 

court is satisfied that the applicant cannot pay the requisite filing fees. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In 

evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the 

applicant’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the 

complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 

(9th Cir. 1984). A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it 

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 

Case 5:16-cv-04104-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). Defendant qualifies financially for IFP status, and his

IFP application therefore is granted. Even so, he may not proceed in this court because there is no 

federal subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject 

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are strictly 

construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is 

proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus 

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the court has a continuing duty to 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). A case must be 

remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendant fails to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts 

have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 

129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not 

satisfy this requirement. Id. Defendant contends that he was not given sufficient notice of the 

unlawful detainer complaint and argues that California’s unlawful detainer laws are 

unconstitutional. Allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the complaint cannot provide 

this court with federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint presents a claim arising only 

under state law. It does not allege any federal claims whatsoever.

Nor does this court find any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have 

jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 

§1332. Defendant fails to identify the citizenship of each party. But, this is of no import since the 

complaint indicates that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, unlawful 

detainer actions involve the right to possession alone, not title to the property. So, the fact that the 

Case 5:16-cv-04104-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. MOAB Investment Group, LLC 

v. Moreno, No. C14-0092EMC, 2014 WL 523092 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell Real 

Estate Investment LLC v. Bracho, No. C12-02774RMW, 2012 WL 2906762 at *1 (N.D. Cal., July 

13, 2012).

There being no basis for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action, the 

removal of this case was improper. Trejo is advised that future attempts to remove this matter 

may result in sanctions.

Because the parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Monterey County Superior 

Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 

fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04104-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:16-cv-04104-HRL Clerk sent copies of this order by U.S. Mail on July 26, 2016 to:

Michael D. Zeff

Rosenthal, Withem & Zeff

16027 Ventura Blvd., Suite 320

Encino, CA 91436

Mariano Trejo

1319 Mazatlan Street

Salinas, CA 93905

Case 5:16-cv-04104-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 4