Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01730/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

JPMORGAN CHASE BAN NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY 

MERGER TO CHASE HOME FINANCE, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RENFRO and DOES 1 to 6,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01730 HRL

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED 

TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING IFP 

APPLICATION

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE REMAND TO STATE COURT

David Renfro removed this unlawful detainer action from the Santa Cruz 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 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 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/17/15 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). Renfro 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).

Renfro 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. In his removal notice, Renfro says that he “seeks remedies under 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (‘ADA’) title 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq.” in 

connection with plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. (Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal at 2). However, 

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. Renfro fails to identify the citizenship of each party, although he has checked boxes on the 

Case 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/17/15 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

civil cover sheet indicating that the parties are citizens of different states. (Dkt. 2 at Section III). 

But, this is of no import because 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); 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. Renfro 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 Santa Cruz 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.

Dated: April 17, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/17/15 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

5:15-cv-01730-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Donald Charles Schwartz triallaw@cruzio.com

5:14-cv-04586-HRL A courtesy copy of this order sent by U.S. Mail to:

Randall D. Naiman

Naiman Law Group, Professional Corporation

4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 850

San Diego, CA 92122

Case 5:15-cv-01730-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 4