Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02251/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02251-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
MUFG Union Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff
Judy Pipkin
Defendant
Willie J. Riley
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 

MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIE J. RILEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-02251-EDL 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: REMAND 

Re: Dkt. No. 6 

On April 26, 2016, Defendant Willie J. Riley filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer case filed by Plaintiff MUFG Union 

Bank, N.A., against Defendants Willie J. Riley and Judy Pipkin in San Benito County Superior 

Court on February 9, 2016. The Notice of Removal is only signed by Defendant Riley. On May 

10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court and alternatively requested the 

Court to order remand sua sponte. Defendant Riley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. As the parties have not yet consented to this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court issues this 

Report and Recommendation and will reassign this case to a district judge. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court recommends remanding this matter to state court. 

“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 

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

Case 3:16-cv-02251-JD Document 7 Filed 05/11/16 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

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). 

Remand is appropriate on the ground that Defendant Pipkin has not joined in the notice of 

removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Remand is also appropriate on the ground that 

this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

When a civil action over which the federal courts have original jurisdiction is brought in 

state court, the defendant may remove the action to federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

However, a case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only when 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 asserts only one state law claim for unlawful detainer. Because the complaint does 

not provide any basis for removal, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. 

Although Defendant Riley does not base his notice of removal on diversity jurisdiction, 

that too is lacking. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02251-JD Document 7 Filed 05/11/16 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

of interests and costs.” The complaint, however, alleges that Plaintiff is a resident of California 

and that Defendants are unlawfully detaining property located in California. Therefore, the Parties 

are not diverse. Further, the face of the complaint, which states that the amount demanded in this 

limited civil case does not exceed $10,000, shows that the jurisdictional minimum has not been 

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

ground. 

In addition to remand, Plaintiff requests an unspecified award of attorney’s fees and costs. 

“An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, 

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Supreme 

Court has held that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under § 

1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking 

removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists, fees should be denied.” Martin 

v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (citations omitted). The decision of whether 

to award fees and costs pursuant to § 1447(c) “has [been] unambiguously left . . . to the discretion 

of the district court.” Moore v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1992); 

see also Topeka Hous. Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245, 1248 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming an 

award of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) that was less than the amount actually incurred by 

the plaintiff in light of the defendant’s pro se status and the district court’s determination that the 

award was fair and reasonable). 

Here, there was no objectively reasonable basis for removal of this purely state law case. 

However, Plaintiff does not specify the fees and costs that it seeks to recover. Furthermore, 

Defendant Riley previously filed an application indicating that he is unable to pay even the costs 

of filing these proceedings. (See Dkt. 3.) In light these considerations, the Court recommends 

denying Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends remanding this case to the San Benito 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02251-JD Document 7 Filed 05/11/16 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02251-JD Document 7 Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 4