Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01434/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1434-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

REMAND

vs.

DANNY R. GARLAND and LUCY M.

GARLAND,

Defendant.

On June 19, 2013, Defendant Lucy Garland filed a notice of removal of this case from

state court, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant Danny Garland

filed no motion to proceed in forma paupers and did not join in the removal.

Defendants may proceed in forma pauperis only if they are both eligible. See

Gulbransen v. Far Northern Regional Center, 2011 WL 2462994 at *1 (E.D.Cal., 2011)

(explaining that the statutory filing fee must be paid unless each plaintiff filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, and was granted leave to do so). As it is, it is possible Lucy

Garland has limited income and assets but Danny Garland has an adequate income or

assets such that he should be required to pay the filing fee. Lucy Garland’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/ / /

- 1 - 13cv1434

Case 3:13-cv-01434-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 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

The Court is required to examine notices of removal promptly, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4)

and must remand actions were jurisdiction is lacking. Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n

of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Failure of all Defendants to join in removal renders the removal improper, but this is

a procedural defect that must be raised by Plaintiff and not by the Court sua sponte. See

Kelton Arms Condominium Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9 Cir. 2003) th

(district court lacks authority to remand removed case sua sponte based on nonjurisdictional

defect); Parrino v. FHP, 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9 Cir. 1998) (failure of all defendants to join in th

removal is a procedural defect).

Of greater concern is the apparent lack of jurisdiction. "The removal statute is strictly

construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand." 

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airline, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

"A court has an obligation to consider its own jurisdiction, and should, sua sponte, raise any

doubts it has about its jurisdiction." Bassiri v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.3d 927, 933 n.3 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing WMX Tech. Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997)). "The burden

of establishing federal jurisdiction is upon the party seeking removal . . . and the removal

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction." Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846

F.2d 1190, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). 

The removed action is an unlawful detainer action filed in state court and bringing only

claims arising under state law. The notice of removal argues the Court has jurisdiction over

the removed action because Defendants have federal defenses, and it also mentions a

bankruptcy action pending in federal court Under the well-pleaded-complaint doctrine,

however, federal questions raised in a defendant's responsive pleadings cannot give rise to

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems,

Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831–32 (2002). 

While the notice cites various federal statutes, including the diversity jurisdiction

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the complaint seeks far less than the jurisdictional amount in

controversy. In fact, it specifies the recovery sought is less than $10,000. 

- 2 - 13cv1434

Case 3:13-cv-01434-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/21/13 Page 2 of 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

The notice of removal does not argue jurisdiction is proper based on the Federal

National Mortgage Association's (FNMA's) charter, see generally Fed'l Nat'l Morg. Ass'n v.

Sandoval, 2011 WL 976708, slip op. at *2–*4 (E.D.Cal., March 16, 2011) (discussing case

law and concluding FNMA's charter did not give rise to original federal jurisdiction), or for any

other reason. 

Defendants are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not

be remanded to the court from which it was removed. They may do so by filing a

memorandum of points and authorities, not to exceed seven pages (not counting any lodged 

or appended material), no later than July 1, 2013. If they fail to show cause within the time

permitted, this action will be remanded to the court from which it was removed.

Also no later than July 1, 2013, they must either 1) both file motions to proceed in

forma pauperis, or 2) pay the filing fee. If they fail to do this within the time permitted, this

action will also be remanded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1434

Case 3:13-cv-01434-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/21/13 Page 3 of 3