Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lodi Hotel Investors v. Manuel Luna

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 29, 2013

LODI HOTEL INVESTORS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MANUEL LUNA, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND REMANDING ACTION

15 This case was removed from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, where it was pending as 16 an unlawful detainer action against pro se Defendant Manuel Luna ("Defendant"). Defendant filed a 17 "Notice of Removal (Under Federal Question Jurisdiction) Provisions of Title 28 USC, Section 18 1331. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Discrimination Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights" on August 13, 2012. 19 (Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) Defendant also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 20 Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.)

21 Defendant removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446, invoking this Court's 22 federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis that "Defendant strongly believes 23 he has been discriminated [sic] and that the Plaintiff has violated federal law, by doing so. . The 24 landlord is discriminating me [sic] because he doesn't like me." (Id. at ¶ 3.) 25 Plaintiff Lodi Hotel Investors, LP ("Plaintiff") has filed a motion to remand on the grounds 26 that Defendant has failed to establish the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction or any other 27 basis for federal jurisdiction. Defendant has filed no opposition to the motion as of the date of this 28 Order.

1 The Court GRANTS the motion for remand because no federal question is presented in this 2 action and DENIES the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.*fn1 The complaint asserts only one state 3 law claim for unlawful detainer. Thus, there is no federal question. 4 In addition, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of 5 $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction, nor has Defendant established that there is diversity of 6 citizenship between the parties.

7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. 8 Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys' fees is DENIED. 9 Defendant's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED. 10 The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to the San Joaquin County Superior 11 Court.

12 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 2 & 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.