Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01254/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441la Removal - Truth in Lending Act

---

1

16CV1254 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.: 16CV1254 BEN (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING 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. Instead of paying the 

filing fee, Salazar moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED 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),

Case 3:16-cv-01254-BEN-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16CV1254 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

[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 reflects an inability to pay the fee 

to pursue this action. The Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. 

II. Sua Sponte Screening

An IFP complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines 

that it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” 

or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” The sua 

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

Upon the Court’s screening 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 an unlawful detainer action. Defendant cites the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act in the Notice of Removal, however this is not a claim asserted in 

the Complaint.1 This Court lacks federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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). The Complaint indicates that 

 

1 Assuming it can even be asserted in an unlawful detainer action, this is, at best, a federal 

defense. “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). 

Case 3:16-cv-01254-BEN-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16CV1254 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

the amount demanded is $10,000 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01254-BEN-BGS Document 4 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 3