Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02932/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02932-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

BALDINI REAL ESTATE,INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLORO LORENZO CRUZ, JR., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-2932 YGR

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4

Defendant Floro Lorenzo Cruz, Jr. in a pro se capacity removed this case from the Superior 

Court for the County of San Mateo where it was pending as an unlawful detainer action against 

defendants. Defendant filed a notice of removal on June 24, 2015 (Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1

(“NOR”)), claiming to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 

1443(1). Defendant concurrently moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On July 9, 

2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. (Dkt. No. 4 (“Mtn.”).) Defendant did 

not respond in opposition and plaintiff likewise did not file any reply.

Presently before the Court are defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to superior court. The Court having reviewed the papers,1and 

for or the reasons set forth below, GRANTS defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand, and DENIES plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs. 

 

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that 

this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing 

set for August 18, 2015.

Case 4:15-cv-02932-YGR Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis adequately alleges his poverty. 

Defendant is self-employed, his monthly expenses appear to exceed his monthly income, and he has 

one dependent. He does not own a home and has significant outstanding debts. Therefore, 

defendant qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and his application is GRANTED.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate on two separate and independent bases, namely 

that: (a) the notice of removal was untimely; and (b) plaintiff has not established any basis for 

subject matter jurisdiction. The Court agrees that remand is warranted on both accounts and 

addresses each in turn.

a. Timeliness of Removal 

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1446, governs timeliness of removal and provides in 

pertinent part:

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 

within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for 

relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 

days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial 

pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served 

on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Failure to file a timely notice of removal waives a defendant’s right to remove. 

Cantrell v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, if defendant did not 

file the notice of removal within 30 days of service of summons, the notice of removal is untimely 

and the action should be remanded.

Plaintiff argues, and the record shows, that defendant filed the notice of removal more than 30 

days after he was served with summons. Specifically, removing defendant was served through 

substituted service on his co-tenant and co-defendant on May 20, 2015.2 (See Proof of Service of 

 

2

Service was effected on May 20, 2015, on the removing defendant’s co-defendant Armie Cruz

personally, and by substitute service on Armie Cruz on behalf of the removing defendant Floro Lorenzo Cruz, 

Jr. (Dkt. No. 4-2.) Removing defendant has not presented any argument that he did not actually receive the 

complaint on this date. Moreover, regardless of his personal receipt of service, the 30-day deadline to remove 

the matter runs from this date as the day the first proper defendant (Armie Cruz) was served. United 

Case 4:15-cv-02932-YGR Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Summons, Exhibit D to Declaration of Jonathan Herschel, Dkt. No. 4-2.) To be timely under 28 

U.S.C. section 1446(b), therefore, defendant’s notice of removal would have to have been filed in 

federal court no later than June 19, 2015. However, defendant did not file the notice of removal3until 

five days later on June 24, 2015. Because defendant did not timely file the notice of removal, he 

waived his right to remove, and the action is due to be remanded on this basis alone.

b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

Remand is also appropriate because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action. A defendant in state court may remove an action to federal court so long as the action could 

have originally asserted subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removing defendant 

has the burden of proving the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction. Nishimoto v. FederamanBachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal statutes are strictly construed 

against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941); Takeda v. 

Northwestern Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 1985). 

In this case, the defendant argues that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on a

federal question. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be presented on 

the face of a complaint at the time of removal for federal question jurisdiction to exist. Duncan v. 

Stuetzel, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). An anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to 

confer jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (under the “well-pleaded 

complaint” rule, a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense); see also Wayne v. 

DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d. 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (existence of a defense based on 

federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction). Here, however, the complaint asserts only one 

state law claim for unlawful detainer, and does not present any federal question. Defendant also does 

 

Computer Sys. Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that a majority of courts to 

address the issue have adopted the “first-served” rule). 

3 The Court notes that the notice of removal does not specify whether co-defendant Armie Cruz joins 

in the petition for removal, as is required in the normal course. See Wisconsin v. Dept. of Corrections v. 

Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 393 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“Removal requires the consent of all the 

defendants.”); Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford, 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981) (“As a general rule, all 

defendants who may properly join in the removal petition must join.”)

Case 4:15-cv-02932-YGR Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 5
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

not appear to raise a federal defense, and he therefore cites 28 U.S.C. section 1443(1) as a basis for 

removal.4 (See NOR.) 

28 U.S.C. section 1443(1) permits the removal of certain “civil rights cases.” A petition for 

removal under section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test: (1) “the petitioner must assert, as a 

defense to the [action], rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal 

racial civil rights;” and (2) the “petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that 

right,” with “reference to a state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state 

courts to ignore the federal rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2006).

Defendant argues that he will raise a defense to the unlawful detainer action pursuant to his 

equal rights based not on race but on other constitutionally guaranteed rights he claims are protected 

by 42 U.S.C. section 1981. (See NOR.) Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent undoubtedly 

limit removal under section 1443(1) to only cases where it is predicated upon racial discrimination. 

Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92 (1966) (“we conclude that the phrase ‘any law providing 

for equal civil rights’ must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in 

terms of racial equality.”); Patel, 446 F.3d at 998-99, supra. Defendant acknowledges this authority, 

but implores the Court to ignore binding precedent and hold otherwise. The Court declines. 

Defendant has therefore failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. section 1443(1) or otherwise. 

Accordingly, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff’s motion to 

remand is GRANTED.

III. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees

Plaintiff also asks this Court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in 

connection with this removal. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), permits an award on 

remand, but such an award is up to the sound discretion of the district court, and no strong 

presumption exists in favor awarding fees and costs. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., et al., 546 

U.S. 132 (2005). Although plaintiff did incur attorney fees as a result of this improper removal, the 

 

4 Defendant also cites 28 U.S.C. sections 1350 and 1441 as bases for removal, but then presents no 

argument in support thereof. (See NOR.) He therefore does not meet his burden to show removal was 

appropriate under these alternative theories.

Case 4:15-cv-02932-YGR Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

removing defendant is pro se and did not oppose plaintiff’s motion for remand. A pro se defendant 

is “entitled to more leeway in his attempt to comply with the removal statute.” Gann Properties, LP 

v. Coates, 2013 WL 5754372 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) (quoting HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. 

Bryant, 2009 WL 3787195, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009)). The Court’s conclusion that 

defendant’s removal lacked merit and was procedurally deficient does not require a finding of bad

faith or that defendant did not believe he had a reasonable basis to remove. See Gann Properties, 

2013 WL 5754372 at *2 (a fee award was inappropriate where a tenant in an unlawful detainer 

action filed an ultimately unsuccessful notice of removal on the eve of state court trial). The Court is 

not persuaded that the contours of federal subject matter jurisdiction were obvious to this pro se

defendant. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that an award of attorney fees and costs is not 

appropriate. Further, an award is not in the interest of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination” of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Plaintiff’s fee request is DENIED.

This Order terminates this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to 

the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated August 12, 2015.

 _______________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-02932-YGR Document 5 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 5