Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01638/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01638-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

16CV1638 BEN (BGS)

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

CAH 2014-2 BORROWER, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALONSO SALAZAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV1638 BEN (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP 

(2) REMANDING CASE TO STATE 

COURT

On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff CAH-2014-2 Borrower, LLC filed an unlawful 

detainer action in state court against Defendants Alonso Salazar and Lorena Salas. On 

May 26, 2016, Defendant Salazar removed the action to this Court. In that case, CAH 

2014-2 Borrower, LLC v. Salazar, 16CV1254 BEN (BGS), this Court granted Defendant 

Salazar’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but remanded the case to state 

court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on June 6, 2016. On June 29, 2016, Salazar 

removed the unlawful detainer action again with a motion for leave to proceed IFP.1 The 

 

1 Both removals were untimely. § 1446(b) (notice of removal must be filed within 30 

days of service of a removable complaint or within 30 days of receipt of a filing “from 

which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 

removable.”).

Case 3:16-cv-01638-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16CV1638 BEN (BGS)

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

case was transferred to the undersigned on July 28, 2016. For the reasons set forth 

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

court.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to prepay the entire fee 

only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 

proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement 

of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.

The information provided in Salazar’s affidavit does not adequately reflect an 

inability to pay the fee to pursue this action. He indicates that he receives $2,000 per 

month in income. This might suggest an inability to pay depending on his financial 

obligations. However, he indicates “NONE” under a question asking he list his debts and 

obligations. This may be the result of misunderstanding the questions on the form, but 

regardless, Salazar has not demonstrated he is unable to pay the fee. The Motion to 

Proceed IFP is DENIED on this basis. 

II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction2

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

 

2 Although the Court denies leave to proceed IFP, the Court has reviewed the Complaint 

for purposes of evaluating jurisdiction and remand in addition to the denial of IFP status 

because it appears that Salazar is utilizing the removal procedure to delay the state court 

unlawful detainer proceedings.

Case 3:16-cv-01638-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16CV1638 BEN (BGS)

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

finds it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 

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

be remanded.”) Like Salazar’s prior removal, upon the Court’s review of the Notice of 

Removal and Complaint, it is apparent that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

The allegations of the Complaint arise solely under state law. It is the same unlawful 

detainer action he previously removed. Salazar’s basis for federal question jurisdiction 

has changed from allegations of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to 

housing discrimination and he no longer asserts jurisdiction based on diversity. 

However, like his prior removal, this is still, at best, a federal defense.3 “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). The case is the same and the Court still lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

 

3 This assumes that housing discrimination is even a proper defense. A conclusion the 

Court need not reach because a federal defense does not provide a basis for subjectmatter jurisdiction.

Case 3:16-cv-01638-BEN-BGS Document 6 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 3