Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00929/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00929-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Plaintiff
Victor Lopez
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

1

A second defendant, Lorena Tapia, has not joined in the notice of removal.

2

Good cause appearing, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

GRANTED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LORENA TAPIA, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-10-0929 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION

Before the Court is defendant Victor Lopez’s (“Lopez”) Notice of Removal, filed

March 4, 2010, in which he asserts the Court has diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff Federal

Home Loan Mortgage’s complaint against him.1

 Also before the Court is Lopez’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed March 4, 2010.2

A district court has diversity jurisdiction where “the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between . . . citizens of

different States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A district court must remand a removed case

to state court “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Case 3:10-cv-00929-MMC Document 4 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Lopez bears the burden of establishing that the Court has jurisdiction over the

complaint. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir.1997). 

In that respect, Lopez has failed to allege, let alone meet his burden to establish, the

parties hereto are citizens of different States. Although Lopez alleges he is a citizen of

California and that plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia, Lopez fails to allege that the other

defendant, specifically, Lorena Tapia, is a citizen of a state other than Virginia.

Moreover, even if each defendant is a citizen of a state other than Virginia, it is

readily apparent from the face of the complaint that the amount in controversy does not

exceed the sum of $75,000. See Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th

Cir.2006) (holding district court, for purpose of determining jurisdiction, should examine

whether it is “facially apparent” from complaint that amount in controversy does not exceed

sum of $75,000). Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer. On its face, the complaint

seeks actual damages of $300 per day, accruing as of July 31, 2009 (see Compl. ¶ 9), and

statutory damages in the amount of $600 (see Compl. ¶ 10), for a total award “not

exceed[ing] $10,000” (see Compl. at 1). Lopez offers no evidence to show that, contrary to

the complaint, the amount in controversy in fact exceeds the sum of $75,000.

Consequently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. See

Singer, 116 F.3d at 376 (9th Cir.1997) (holding where “plaintiff does not claim damages in

excess of [$75,000] and the defendant offers no facts whatsoever to show that the amount

in controversy exceeds [$75,000], then the defendant has not borne the burden on removal

of proving that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied”).

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State

of California, in and for the County of Madera.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00929-MMC Document 4 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2