Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01652/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

15CV1652 BEN (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMA ARANGURE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANTON EUGENE PAUL and 

MICHELLE PAUL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV1652 BEN (JLB)

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IFP AND REMANDING 

TO STATE COURT

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff Norma Arangure, Trustee of the Norma Arangure 

Living Trust, filed an unlawful detainer action in state court against Defendants Danton 

Eugene Paul and Michelle Paul. (Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1].) On July 24, 2015, 

Michelle Paul removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Instead of paying the filing 

fee, Paul moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) For the reasons set 

forth below, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED to state 

court.

The Court is obligated to screen all cases filed IFP to determine if the case “fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (finding “section 1915(e) not 

only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 

fails to state a claim”). “A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at 

the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous 

Case 3:15-cv-01652-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

15CV1652 BEN (JLB)

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

or without merit.” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Upon the Court’s screening of the Notice of Removal and state court Complaint, it 

is apparent that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The allegations of the 

Complaint arise solely under state law. It is an unlawful detainer action. Defendants cite 

the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act in their Notice of Removal, however this is, at 

best, a federal defense.1 “A case may not be removed to the federal court on the basis of 

a federal defense.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Quality 

of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In addition, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, precluding diversity as 

a basis for jurisdiction even if diversity of citizenship existed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

(requiring that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000). That state court Complaint 

alleges that the amount demanded is $25,000 or less. 

When a case has been removed, the Court is obligated to remand it if the Court 

finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. “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. 1447(c). Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is 

remanded.

Paul’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the case is REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015

 

1

In finding the PTFA does not provide a private right of action, the Ninth Circuit noted that it might be 

“intended to provide a defense in state eviction proceedings rather than a basis for offensive suits in 

federal court.” Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Case 3:15-cv-01652-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2