Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00444/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00444-0/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. 5:16-cv-00444-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; 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

PEPPER BOTTINI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEAN DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00444-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION REMANDING 

SUA SPONTE AND DENYING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Re: Docket Nos. 1, 2)

Defendants Dean Dominguez and Sandy Arvin have removed this unlawful detainer action 

to federal court.1 The court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a district judge 

and RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge REMAND the case for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction2and DENY Arvin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as frivolous.

3

I.

Plaintiffs Pepper Bottini and Tony Bottini initiated this unlawful detainer action in state 

 

1

See Docket No. 1.

2 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).

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

1996).

Case 5:16-cv-00444-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:16-cv-00444-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; 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

court against Defendants and Does 1 to 5.

4

 

II.

The parties have not yet consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, 5so this matter shall be 

reassigned to a district judge. 

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

matter jurisdiction over the complaint.6 The removal statutes are strictly construed against 

removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is proper.7

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.”8 A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the 

“wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief.9 Defenses and 

counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy this requirement.10 Federal district courts 

also 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.11

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first 

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

12

 

4

See Docket No. 1 at 5-8.

5

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

6

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

7

See 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)).

8

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

9

Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009).

10 Id.

11 See 28 U.S.C. §1332.

12 See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984).

Case 5:16-cv-00444-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:16-cv-00444-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; 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

Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution.13 An IFP 

application will be denied and the action dismissed, however, if the party seeking IFP status has 

filed a pleading or petition that is legally frivolous.14 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.”

15

III.

Applying the above standards, it is clear that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, and 

that Arvin’s notice of removal therefore is frivolous.

First, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Arvin’s notice 

states that there is a federal question because Defendants’ answer “depends on the determination 

of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.”16 This 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.17 Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint

asserts a claim based on state law only—that is, unlawful detainer.18 This is insufficient to support 

federal question jurisdiction.

Second, given that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it is clear that Arvin’s notice 

 

13 See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins 

v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 

14 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

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

16 Docket No. 1 at ¶ 10.

17 See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002); ARCO 

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

2000).

18 See Docket No. 1 at 5.

Case 5:16-cv-00444-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:16-cv-00444-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; 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

of removal “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” and is frivolous.19 In forma pauperis 

status thus is inappropriate.

SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: February 11, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

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

Case 5:16-cv-00444-RMW Document 6 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 4