Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00315/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446pr 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 

FILED 

FEB 19 2016 

CLERK US DIS fRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IJY CC DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID YANCY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HENRIETTA BERNARD, TUAFUTI 

FAUALO, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 16-cv-31S-BEN (JLB) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(2) REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

Defendants Henrietta Bernard and Tuafuti Faualo filed a Notice of Removal in 

conjunction with motions to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Docket Nos. 1,3,4.) 

The Court need not address Defendant's motions because the Court does not have 

subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this matter. 

I. Motions to Proceed IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire 

fee only ifhe is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 

16CV315 

Case 3:16-cv-00315-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

[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. 

Plaintiff Faualo has been unemployed since January 2015 and Plaintiff Bemard has 

6 been unemployed since December 2015. They support themselves and two children on 

7 approximately $1700 per month. However, Plaintiffs lists no obligations, debts, or daily 

8 expenses. As such, it appears that they may be able to afford to pay the filing fee. The 

9 Court therefore DENIES the motions to proceed IFP. 

10 Even assuming Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed IFP, the action would be 

11 screened and remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Cal. Hous. Fin. 

12 Agency v. Zulali, No. 12cv1626, 2012 WL 3542269 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012). 

13 II. IFP Screening 

14 Under section 1915(e) oftitle 28 of the United States Code, the Court must sua 

15 sponte dismiss IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, 

16 fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez 

17 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 

18 1915(e)(2)). "[T]he provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 

19 prisoners." Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 

20 Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 

21 federal court. 28 U.S.c. § 1441. However, the removing party "always has the burden of 

22 establishing that removal was proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

23 1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court "if 

24 at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

25 jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against 

26 removal jurisdiction; doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 

27 must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th 

28 Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 ("Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 

2 

16CV315 

Case 3:16-cv-00315-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 4
1 is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance."). A defense based on federal 

2 law is not sufficient to remove an action to federal court. Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 

3 426 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[N]either an affirmative defense based on federal law ... nor one 

4 based on federal preemption ... renders an action brought in state court removable."). 

5 This is an unlawful detainer action initially filed in the Superior Court of 

6 California, County of San Diego. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff David Yancy 

7 owns real property located at 4750 Calle Las Positas, #E-48, Oceanside, California 

8 92057. According to Plaintiff, Defendants were served with a "3-day notice to pay rent 

9 or quit" on November 8, 2015, but unlawfully continue in possession of the property. 

10 Plaintiff seeks past due rent in the amount of$I,063.43 and the fair rental value of the 

11 premises at the rate of $35 per day until judgment is rendered or possession of the 

12 premises is recovered, and Plaintiffs costs of suit. Defendants filed a Notice of Removal 

13 onFebruary8,2016. 

14 The Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the present action. 

15 Because the Complaint does not allege a violation of any federal law, this Court does not 

16 have federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district court shall have 

17 original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

18 the United States."). In addition, because the Complaint seeks less than $10,000 in 

19 damages, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) ("The 

20 district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 

21 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 

22 between-(1) citizens of different States."). It is also unclear whether Defendants meet 

23 the diversity of citizenship requirement as they are living in California. As such, 

24 Defendants have not met their burden showing that removal is proper and it is clear that 

25 they carmot meet the requirements for federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 

26 III 

.27 III 

28 III 

3 

16CV315 

Case 3:16-cv-00315-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 4
1 CONCLUSION 

2 This Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS 

3 this action to the Superior Court of Cali fomi a, County of San Diego. 

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

5 

6 Dated: February,d, 2016 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

·HON. R T. BENITEZ 

United States District Judge 

4 

16CV315 

Case 3:16-cv-00315-BEN-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 4