Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01589/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01589-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

1

Case No. 16-cv-01589-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

HPB INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIA SALAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01589-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND 

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Re: Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff HPB Investments, LLC initiated this unlawful detainer action in state court.1 

Defendant Maria Salas subsequently removed the case to federal court2and at the same time filed 

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.3Salas has not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,4

so this matter will be reassigned to a district judge. The court recommends that the case be 

remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction5and Salas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis

be denied as frivolous.6

 

1

See Docket No. 1-1.

2

See Docket No. 1.

3

See Docket No. 3.

4

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

5 Cf. 3925 Alameda Prop. LLC v. Brainerd, Case No. 12-cv-4924-EMC, 2012 WL 5199170, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012); Compass Bank v. Goble, Case No. 12-cv-1885-WQH, 2012 WL 

3229155, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012); Louden, LLC v. Pajarillo, Case No. 12-cv-2638-EMC, 

2012 WL 3155151, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012); Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n v. Soliven, Case No. 

10-cv-1844-IEG, 2010 WL 3636260, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010).

6 Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hoke v. Arpaio, 92 F.3d 1192, 1192 (9th Cir. 

Case 5:16-cv-01589-EJD Document 5 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-cv-01589-PSG

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REMANDING SUA SPONTE AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

If the party applying to proceed in forma pauperis has filed a pleading or petition that is 

legally frivolous, the court should deny the application and dismiss the action.7 A submission is 

“frivolous” for IFP purposes and therefore subject to summary dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

“where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

8

In her notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Salas asserts that there is federal 

question jurisdiction over the case because her answer “depend[s] on the determination of [her] 

rights and [HPB]’s duties under federal law.”

9 Her position lacks merit. Federal question 

jurisdiction depends on the contents of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint and may not be 

predicated on the defendant’s counterclaims or defenses.10 Here, HPB’s complaint asserts a claim 

based on state law only—that is, unlawful detainer.11 This is insufficient to support federal 

question jurisdiction. Salas’ removal is legally frivolous, and this case should be dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1996).

7

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

8 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Hoke, 92 F.3d at 1192.

9 Docket No. 1 at 2-3.

10 See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002);

ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th

Cir. 2000).

11 See Docket No. 1-1.

Case 5:16-cv-01589-EJD Document 5 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2