Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00133/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00133-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KIMBERLY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMPARO MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00133-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND

[Re: ECF 3, 8]

On January 9, 2015, pro se defendants Amparo Morales and Tereza Ortiz (collectively, 

“Defendants”) removed this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Monterey. Before the Court are defendant Morales’s Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP Application”), ECF 3, and plaintiff Kimberly Smith’s January 13, 2015 Motion to 

Remand to State Court, ECF 8.1 The Court finds these matters suitable for submission without 

oral argument and accordingly VACATES the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand scheduled 

for April 23, 2015.2 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Morales’s IFP 

Application is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.

To prevent abuse of the federal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) statute, district courts are 

required to dismiss an IFP complaint if the allegation of poverty is untrue, if the action is frivolous 

or malicious, or if the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2); see also Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). In 

his IFP Application, Mr. Morales declares under penalty of perjury that he is not married and is 

 

1 Defendants have not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

2

Plaintiff’s Application for Order Shortening Time to advance the hearing date is accordingly 

DENIED as moot. ECF 14.

Case 5:15-cv-00133-BLF Document 17 Filed 02/02/15 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

employed at VIP Hair Salon and that his net monthly salary is exactly enough to cover his rent, 

food, utilities, and clothing. See ECF 3. Even if the Court accepts that this is sufficient to 

demonstrate poverty, Mr. Morales’s co-defendant, Ms. Ortiz, did not separately seek IFP even 

though she also signed the Notice of Removal. See ECF 1. Were this the only problem, the Court 

could permit amendment of the IFP Application or require payment of the filing fee. Here, 

however, the Court finds that Mr. Morales’s IFP Application cannot be granted because this Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

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

matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction is barred if any properly served defendant is a resident of the state where the action is 

brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The removal statutes are strictly construed against removal and 

place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal was 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)). 

Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a 

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). It is 

settled law that cases “may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Id.

at 393. Here, as Plaintiff correctly notes in her Motion to Remand, there is no federal claim on the

face of the unlawful detainer action filed in state court. Pl.’s Mot. 4-5, ECF 8. Defendants’ 

assertion that their demurrer to Plaintiff’s action “depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s 

rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law” is therefore unavailing. See Notice of Removal ¶ 

10. Moreover, as Defendants appear to reside in California, there can be no removal on the basis 

of diversity jurisdiction.3

 

3

In the alternative, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ removal was not timely, as 

they admit that the underlying action was filed on November 6, 2014 and that Defendants filed a 

demurrer on November 12, 2014. Notice of Removal ¶ 1; Pl.’s Mot. 5-6. Defendants did not 

remove this action until January 9, 2015; well outside of the 30 day deadline set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b). That Defendants apparently waited until after the Superior Court declined to sustain 

their federal law based demurrer before removing to this Court does not excuse compliance with 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). See id. ¶ 8.

Case 5:15-cv-00133-BLF Document 17 Filed 02/02/15 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

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute, removal was 

improper, and the action must be remanded. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is accordingly 

GRANTED, Mr. Morales’s IFP Application is DENIED, and this action is REMANDED to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Monterey.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00133-BLF Document 17 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 3