Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06219/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

E-filed 10/28/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CMP-1, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMELLA ANITA SEYMOUR,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-06219-HRL 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; ORDER 

FINDING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE REMAND TO STATE COURT

Defendant Camella Anita Seymour removed this unlawful detainer action from the 

Monterey County Superior Court. She also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For 

the reasons stated below, the undersigned finds the IFP application moot and 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 

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’s IFP application is incomplete; she did not state the amounts she receives in 

unemployment and Medi-Cal each month. Under other circumstances, the court might have 

required defendant to re-submit a complete application. However, defendant’s IFP application is 

deemed moot because, for the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that there is no federal 

Case 5:16-cv-06219-BLF Document 5 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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 the 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 this case depends on “the determination of

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law,” and notes that her demurrer alleging 

improper notice was denied. (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶¶ 7-10). However, allegations in a removal notice or 

in a demurrer 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 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); 

Case 5:16-cv-06219-BLF Document 5 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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. Defendant 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/28/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06219-BLF Document 5 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 3