Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02647/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

Villavicencio identifies herself as a Defendant. 1

- 1 - 11cv2647

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as

trustee,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2647 BEN (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IFP AND REMANDING

TO STATE COURT

[Dkt. No. 2]

vs.

ODELIO C. SILVA, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association filed an unlawful detainer action

in state court against Defendants Odelio C. Silva and Lilian N. Silva alleging that the amount

demanded is $25,000 or less. (Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1], Ex. A.) On November 14, 2011,

Karen Villavicencio removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Instead of paying the $350.00 1

filing fee, Villavicencio moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) For the reasons

set forth below, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED to state court.

The Court is obligated to screen all cases filed IFP to determine if the case “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (finding “section 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district

court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim”). “A district court may deny

Case 3:11-cv-02647-BEN-BGS Document 4 Filed 11/15/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11cv2647

leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint

that the action is frivolous 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 is apparent

that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The Notice of Removal provides no basis for the

Court’s jurisdiction. The allegations of the Complaint arise solely under state law, precluding federal

question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, the amount in controversy is less than $25,000,

precluding diversity as a basis for jurisdiction even if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. §

1332 (requiring that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000). 

When a case has been removed, the Court is obligated to remand it if the Court finds it lacks

subject matter jurisdiction. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Because the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the case is remanded.

Villavicencio’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2011

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02647-BEN-BGS Document 4 Filed 11/15/11 Page 2 of 2