Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03964/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03964-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-03964-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING CASE 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

KURT MILLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLORIA CABRAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-03964-EJD 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

REMANDING CASE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 

On July 10, 2019, pro se Defendants Gloria Cabral, also known as Gloria Cabral Robles; 

Gloria Castaneda, also known as Gloria C. Cabral; Daniel Arce; and Camila Gaitan removed this 

unlawful detainer action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to this court. Dkt. No. 1. 

Cabral, Castaneda, and Arce filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 2-4. 

However, removal was improper, so the court now remands this case. The court denies the IFP 

motions as moot. 

Removal is proper where federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the 

complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The party seeking 

removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” Heslop v. Ford Motor Co., 2019 

WL 3026954, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2019) (citing Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer 

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009)). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and 

any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Id. (quoting MooreCase 5:19-cv-03964-EJD Document 11 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-03964-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING CASE 

 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 Californi

a

Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009)). “If at any time before final 

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c). 

Defendants contend that the court has both diversity jurisdiction and original jurisdiction. 

There are two requirements to establish diversity jurisdiction: (1) the matter in controversy must 

exceed $75,000, and (2) it must be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 

Complaint states that it concerns a matter “under $10,000.00.” Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Defendants say 

that “their damage exceeds $75,000,” but they have filed no causes of action, so they cannot claim 

damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Nor do they allege any facts or point to anything in the record support 

this assertion. The amount in controversy requirement is not met in this matter. Defendants also 

assert that they and Plaintiff are citizens of different states. But, while they are citizens of 

California, they do not allege where Plaintiff has citizenship. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Nor does the 

Complaint provide Plaintiff’s state of citizenship. Dkt. No. 1 at 10-13. Defendants therefore fail 

to show the second requirement for diversity jurisdiction has been met. Defendants cannot 

establish diversity jurisdiction. 

They fare no better with original jurisdiction. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based 

on the “well-pleaded 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. Defendants assert that original jurisdiction arises 

from their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, from the interpretation of an 

agreement with Plaintiff, from the ownership of the property, and from Plaintiff’s standing. Dkt. 

No. 10 at 4. However, none of these assertions satisfies the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” The 

Complaint itself has only one cause of action—unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 1161a. Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Defendants fail to establish federal question 

jurisdiction. 

Case 5:19-cv-03964-EJD Document 11 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-03964-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING CASE 

 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 Californi

a

Having found that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court remands this case. 

The pending IFP motions are denied as moot. The Clerk shall close the file and serve a copy of 

this order on the Santa Clara County Superior Court without delay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2017 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-03964-EJD Document 11 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 3