EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC v. SANTIAGO, 15-cv-04143-EMC. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20151015856
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Docket Nos. 2, 4. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Eagle Vista Equities, LLC initiated this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Wilson C. Santiago in state court. Mr. Santiago removed the case to federal court and filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Judge James of this Court issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which she concluded that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over the case. T
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Docket Nos. 2, 4. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Eagle Vista Equities, LLC initiated this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Wilson C. Santiago in state court. Mr. Santiago removed the case to federal court and filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Judge James of this Court issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which she concluded that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over the case. Th..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Docket Nos. 2, 4.
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Eagle Vista Equities, LLC initiated this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Wilson C. Santiago in state court. Mr. Santiago removed the case to federal court and filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Judge James of this Court issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which she concluded that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over the case.
The Court has reviewed Judge James's R&R and finds it thorough, well reasoned, and correct. Accordingly, it adopts Judge James's R&R as the order of the Court.
As for the pending application to proceed IFP, the Court deems it moot in light of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also notes that the application was not fully completed. See, e.g., Docket No. 2 (App. at 3) (indicating that Mr. Santiago owns or is buying a home but not listing its estimated market value of the amount of mortgage).
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the file in this case.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 2 and 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
