UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 4, 2007
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
MARY BOCHUM AND STEPHANIE COURT ASHLEY AND ASSOCIATES, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION TO STATE
Defendant Mary Bochum moves for leave to prosecute this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. The court denies the motion without prejudice because Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed motion and application. The motion filed with this court omitted the second page of the application. Accordingly, the court is unable to adequately assess Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court also sua sponte remands this action to state court. See Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992) (the court may sua sponte remand an action to state court). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are even "obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] existence. . . ." Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted).
On January 11, 2007 Plaintiffs commenced an unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court for the County of Riverside. Plaintiff Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and Defendants Stephanie Ashley and Mary Bochum are alleged citizens of the State of California. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 2, 5; Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2). On May 4, 2007 Defendant Bochum removed this action based upon diversity of citizenship. As the parties are alleged to be citizens of the State of California, diversity of citizenship is lacking under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a).
In sum, the court sua sponte remands this action to the Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.