Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02806/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02806-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
Plaintiff
Michelle M. Martinez
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELLE M. MARTINEZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02806-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND; ORDER GRANTING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

REASSIGNING CASE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15-cv-02806-EDL 

On June 22, 2015, Defendant Michelle M. Martinez filed a Notice of Removal of the 

unlawful detainer case filed by Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank against Defendant in Contra Costa 

County Superior Court as well as an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As the parties 

have not yet consented to this Court's jurisdiction, the Court issues this Report and 

Recommendation and reassigns this case to a district judge. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court grants Defendant's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and recommends remanding 

this matter to state court. 

Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis adequately alleges her poverty. 

Defendant is not employed, her monthly expenses appear to exceed her monthly income, and she 

has one dependent. She does not own a home, and does not have a bank account. She owns 

$50.00 in cash. Therefore, Defendant qualifies for In Forma Pauperis status, and her Application 

is granted. 

 However, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case and the case should be 

remanded. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought 

in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 

removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the 

Case 4:15-cv-02806-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.” Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Thus, “[f]ederal jurisdiction 

must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citation 

omitted). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id.; see also Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 

443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006). Removal jurisdiction may be based on diversity of citizenship 

or on the existence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Whether removal jurisdiction exists 

must be determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). “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). 

 Defendant bases her removal on federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶ 

10. A case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only where a federal question appears 

on the face of the properly pleaded complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002) (“The 

well-pleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case “arises under” federal law for 

purposes of § 1331.”); see also Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 

2002) (“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”). Here, the face of the 

complaint, which asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer, does not provide any 

ground for removal. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because the complaint, on its face, does not arise under federal law. 

 To the extent that removal is based on diversity jurisdiction, none exists. Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. section 1332, this Court has diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and "the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs." The 

complaint filed by Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff is an "entity lawfully doing business in 

Case 4:15-cv-02806-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

California," and the Defendant "at all times . . . resided in the State of California;" thus, there is no 

diversity. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the amount demanded is under 

$10,000; thus there is an insufficient amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction. 

Because the case is not removable as a diversity action, remand is also appropriate on this ground. 

 Accordingly, the Court recommends remanding the case to the Contra Costa County 

Superior Court. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation 

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 30, 2015 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 4:15-cv-02806-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHELLE M. MARTINEZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02806-EDL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 30, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached report & 

recommendation; order, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the 

person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said 

copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Michelle M. Martinez 

1308 Miner Avenue 

San Pablo, CA 94806 

Dated: June 30, 2015 

Richard W. Wieking 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Stephen Ybarra, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

Case 4:15-cv-02806-YGR Document 6 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 4