Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00052/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00052-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-10-0052 REFERRAL WITH RECOMMENDATION Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHEBANK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIO LOPEZ et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 10-0052 JL

Referral for Reassignment with

Recommendation that IFP Application

be denied and case be remanded to

State court

Before this Court is the application of Defendant Mario Lopez to proceed in forma

paupers (“IFP”) without the payment of fees.

This is an unlawful detainer action, originally filed at PS 09-2294, in November 2009

in Superior Court in Pittsburg (Contra Costa County). Defendant rents a house in Oakley.

The house was sold at foreclosure sale and the Plaintiff bank took possession in July 2009

and Defendant was served with a 90-day Notice to Quit. He filed a number of pleadings in

state court and then removed the action to federal court on January 6, 2010 on the basis of

diversity of citizenship. 

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

subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. If after a court's prompt

review of a notice of removal “it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits

annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for

Case 4:10-cv-00052-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-10-0052 REFERRAL WITH RECOMMENDATION Page 2 of 3

summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4) (emphasis added). These removal statutes are

strictly construed against removal and place the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate

that removal was proper. 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)).

Defendant contends that Plaintiff is of German citizenship, and that he is a citizen of

California. As local defendants, it would appear that the Mr. Lopez and the other unnamed

defendants do not have the right to remove this action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)

(stating that an action is removable “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined

and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought”).

However, as a procedural requirement, a federal court cannot remand sua sponte on this

basis. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir.2006).

Federal jurisdiction based on diversity requires not only that the opposing parties be

citizens of different states, but also that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Furthermore, a review of the complaint shows that it specifies that the

“amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.00,” or at most $25,000 - (see Ex. A to

Notice of Removal, Civil Case Cover Sheet and Caption of Complaint). Plaintiff seeks

possession of the premises, costs of suit and any further relief the Court deems proper. (Id.

at p. 3 of Complaint) Consequently, it is apparent from the face of the complaint that it also

fails to meet this court's jurisdictional requirement under § 1332(a), and this court lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction.

Because Defendants have yet to consent to the undersigned's jurisdiction, under 28

U.S.C. §636(c), this court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a district

court judge. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge (1)

summarily remand the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court; and (2) deny as moot,

without prejudice, Defendant’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), any party may serve and file objections to this

Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served.

Case 4:10-cv-00052-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-10-0052 REFERRAL WITH RECOMMENDATION Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 28, 2010 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\10-0052 Ref.Reassign - rec. deny IFP.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-00052-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 3