VASONA MANAGEMENT, INC. v. HALL, C 14-5265 MMC. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20141230c93
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's Report and Recommendation, filed December 9, 2014, by which Magistrate Judge Westmore recommends the Court deny defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis and that the above-referenced case be remanded. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have b
Summary: ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's Report and Recommendation, filed December 9, 2014, by which Magistrate Judge Westmore recommends the Court deny defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis and that the above-referenced case be remanded. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have be..
More
ORDER RE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's Report and Recommendation, filed December 9, 2014, by which Magistrate Judge Westmore recommends the Court deny defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis and that the above-referenced case be remanded. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court hereby rules as follows.
1. Having considered defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds defendant sufficiently sets forth therein her financial inability to proceed without the payment of fees. Accordingly, defendant's application is GRANTED.
2. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Alameda.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
