The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court Northern District of California
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS
Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA‟s ("Plaintiff") initiated this unlawful detainer action January 17, 2012 in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Defendant Bill Fuchs ("Defendant"), proceeding pro 22 se, removed this action to federal court on March 22, 2012. Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. 23 Defendant also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3. 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s Motion to Remand and for Fees and Costs ("Motion"). 25
Remand Motion, Dkt. No. 11. Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Motion. The Court finds 26 that the Motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7--1(b). 27 Accordingly, the hearing on the Motion set for Friday, June 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED. 28
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant‟s IFP Application, GRANTS Plaintiff‟s Motion to Remand, and DENIES Plaintiff‟s request for fees and costs.*fn1
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it purchased property known as 2951 Roundhill Road, Alamo, CA 94507 at a foreclosure sale on November 28, 2011. Complaint ¶ 8. On January 9, 2012, 7 after title was perfected, Plaintiff caused to be served on Defendant a three-day Notice to Quit 8 ("Notice"). Id. ¶ 9. The Notice instructed Defendant to deliver possession of the premises to 9 Plaintiff within three days after service of the Notice. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to 10 comply with the Notice. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that the fair market rental value of the property is 11 estimated to be $2,500 per month. Id. ¶ 12. The Complaint states on the face page that the amount 12 demanded "is less than $10,000." The Complaint contains a single state cause of action for unlawful detainer. 14
B. Defendant's Notice of Removal
On March 22, 2012, Defendant removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Notice of Removal at 2.
Defendant contends that "[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants‟ demurrer, a 18 pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendants‟ rights and Plaintiff‟s duties under federal 19 law." Id. at 3. Defendant states he had earlier filed a demurrer, denied by the state court, alleging 20 that the complaint for unlawful detainer was defective. Id. at 2-3. 21
A. Application to Proceed In ...