UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAVI BHAT, et al., Case No.23-cv-05425-PCP

Plaintiffs. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND YUSUFU TAJIGULI, REMANDING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 10

Before the Court is defendant Yusufu Tajiguli’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Also pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. For the following reasons, the Court denies the defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and remands the case to Santa Clara Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs, Ravi Bhat and Meenakshi Bhat as Trustees of the Ravi and Meenakshi Bhat Living Trust, are owners of real property located at 5537 Perugia Circle, San Jose, CA 95138. They allege that they entered into a written lease agreement with defendant Yusufu Tajiguli on October 16, 2022 with respect to that property. The plaintiffs and defendant are all residents of Santa Clara County and thus citizens of California. The complaint alleges that the defendant was delinquent in the amount of $6,000 as of August 15, 2023, and failed to pay rent or vacate the property within three days of a notice. The plaintiffs then commenced this unlawful detainer action in Santa Clara Superior Court on August 21, 2023 seeking restitution of possession of the property, unpaid rent in the amount of $6,000, and damages at a rate of $200 per day from September 1, 2023 for each day the defendant continues to possess the property. Appearing pro se, the defendant filed a notice of removal and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on October 23, 2023. On December 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion to 1 remand. 2 LEGAL STANDARDS 3 Courts may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a 4 proper affidavit of indigency. See

(a). Courts “may deny leave to proceed in 5 forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action 6 is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr.,

(9th Cir. 7 1987). One such circumstance is where the complaint fails to establish federal subject matter 8 jurisdiction. 9 A defendant may remove a suit from state court to federal court only if the federal court 10 would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See

(a). “If at 11 any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 12 the case shall be remanded.”

(c). The party seeking removal bears the burden 13 of establishing federal jurisdiction. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582

, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about 15 the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, 16 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009). See Polo v. Innoventions Int’l, LLC,

, 17 1196 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Remand is the correct remedy because a failure of federal subject-matter 18 jurisdiction means only that the federal courts have no power to adjudicate the matter. State 19 courts are not bound by the constraints of Article III.”). 20 ANALYSIS 21 This Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction and must remand the case. Unlike 22 state courts, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 23 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

375, 377 (1994). As a general matter, Congress has authorized federal jurisdiction only in cases 25 that present a federal question, see

, or where there is complete diversity of 26 27 1 citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C § 1332)! 2 Neither basis for jurisdiction exists here. The plaintiffs’ complaint for unlawful detainer 3 arises solely under California law and does not state a cause of action arising under the 4 || Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Federal question jurisdiction is not available. 5 || See

. The plaintiffs’ complaint also does not allege complete diversity of 6 || citizenship or an amount of controversy that exceeds $75,000, as required to establish diversity 7 || jurisdiction. The plaintiffs and defendant in this action are citizens of California, see Dkt. No. 1- 8 1, at 1, and the amount of controversy is alleged to be only “OVER $10,000,” see Dkt. No. 1, at 9 || 7,9. 10 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case to Santa 11 Clara Superior Court. See

(c). 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, Yusufu Tajiguli’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is 14 || denied and this matter is remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: January 18, 2024 LA Qe 17 ° ley P. CASEY PITTS 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Although there are other limited grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction, none are 27 || relevant here. 28