Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01236/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 U.S. Defendant

---

1

17cv1236-LAB (NLS)

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

GATB, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHARON JOHNSON; NIGEL LAMAR 

JOHNSON; AND DOES 1 to 5,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1236-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

AND

ORDER OF REMAND

Defendant Nigel Lamar Johnson filed a notice of removal along with a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Defendant Sharon Johnson did not join in the removal 

and did not file a motion to proceed IFP.

The IFP motion is incomplete. Besides omitting a good deal of information about 

Nigel Johnson’s assets, it says nothing about Sharon Johnson and whether she is able to 

help pay the filing fee. See Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Andrukov, 2017 

WL 838221, slip op. at *1 (W.D. Wash., Mar. 3, 2017) (noting that IFP application was 

deficient because not all of the removing defendants had completed one). See also

Anderson v. California, 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2010) (requiring each 

plaintiff to qualify for IFP status). The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01236-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1236-LAB (NLS)

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 is also defective on many levels. Besides violating Civil Local 

Rule 5.1 regarding legibility, it purports to remove the case from the Superior Court of the 

State of California for the County of San Joaquin, which is in the Eastern District of 

California. See 28 U.S.C. '1441(a) providing for removal of cases from state court to the 

federal district court for the district embracing the place where such action is pending). 

Courts are divided regarding whether a case removed to the wrong district court should be 

transferred or remanded. See, e.g., Soundview Communications, Inc. v. Lotus Mgt., LLC, 

2013 WL 5954793 at *2 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2013) (comparing cases); Tanzman v. Midwest 

Exp. Airlines, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (explaining that if a defendant 

removes the case to the wrong district court, the court has discretion either to transfer or 

remand).

But the most serious flaw is that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. If 

jurisdiction over a removed case is lacking, the Court must remand it. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); 

see Brockman v. Merabank, 40 F.3d 1013, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 1994).

This is an unlawful detainer action which does not involve any substantial federal 

question. The amount in controversy is less than $10,000 and the parties are not diverse, 

so the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal only suggests 

that removal is proper because the “defendant will not be able to receive a fair hearing or 

trial” in state court. (Compl., &11.) This apparently is a reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

Section 1443 provides for removal of civil actions where a defendant’s federal rights 

won’t be respected in state court. The notice of removal doesn’t identify any particular 

federally-protected right the Johnsons have sought to enforce, or a state law that prevents 

them from enforcing their federally-protected civil rights. See Four Keys Leasing & 

Maintenance Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770, 773–74 (2d Cir. 1988) (discussing standard 

for § 1443(1) removal). Federal courts routinely decline to exercise jurisdiction over 

simple unlawful detainer actions such as this one. See Calif. Housing Fin. Agy. v. Zulali, 

2012 WL 3542269 at *1 (S.D. Cal., Aug. 2, 2012). The notice of removal’s bare assertion 

that Nigel Johnson can’t get a fair trial in state court is plainly insufficient. See Murray v. 

Case 3:17-cv-01236-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1236-LAB (NLS)

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

Deer Park Union Free School Dist., 154 F. Supp. 2d 424, 426–27 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) 

(holding § 1443(1) removal petition “insufficient on its face,” that made only vague and 

conclusory assertions that the state court would not protect his federal civil rights).

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims, this action is REMANDED to 

the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01236-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 06/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3