Filed: Jul. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING ACTION; VACATING AUGUST 10, 2012 HEARING MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") motion, filed June 27, 2012, for an order remanding the above-titled action to state court. Removing defendant Julio Lopez ("Lopez") has not filed opposition. 1 Also before the Court is Lopez's application, filed June 13, 2012, to pr
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING ACTION; VACATING AUGUST 10, 2012 HEARING MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") motion, filed June 27, 2012, for an order remanding the above-titled action to state court. Removing defendant Julio Lopez ("Lopez") has not filed opposition. 1 Also before the Court is Lopez's application, filed June 13, 2012, to pro..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING ACTION; VACATING AUGUST 10, 2012 HEARING
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") motion, filed June 27, 2012, for an order remanding the above-titled action to state court. Removing defendant Julio Lopez ("Lopez") has not filed opposition.1 Also before the Court is Lopez's application, filed June 13, 2012, to proceed in forma pauperis.
Having read and considered the parties' respective submissions, the Court finds the matters appropriate for determination thereon, hereby VACATES the August 10, 2012 hearing on Wells Fargo's motion, and rules as follows:
1. Based on the above-referenced application, Lopez lacks the resources to pay the filing fee, and, accordingly, said application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED.
2. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action, which consists of a single state law claim for unlawful detainer. Although Lopez, in his notice of removal, asserts he has a defense under federal law, a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by alleging a federal defense to a claim arising under state law. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987) (holding "federal defenses do not provide a basis for removal").
Accordingly, Wells Fargo's motion for an order of remand is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
