1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHMOND ESSEX LP, Case No. 25-cv-05686-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & 9 v. REOCMMENDATIONS; GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 10 BRANDON DANIELS, FORMA PAUPERIS; AND REMANDING CASE Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 10, 17

12 Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson’s July 11, 1015, Report 13 and Recommendation concerning defendant Brandon Daniels’s Notice of Removal. Report and 14 Recommendation (“Report”) [Dkt. No. 10]; Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1]. Objections to the 15 Report were due July 25, 2025. Mr. Daniels timely filed his objections, along with an Answer and 16 Counterclaim against plaintiff Richmond Essex LP on July 15, 2025. See Dkt. Nos. 14–16. 17 As an initial matter, Mr. Daniels moves to proceed in this case in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 18 3. The in forma pauperis statute authorizes a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without 19 prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable 20 to pay such fees.

(a). When presented with an application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis, a court must first decide whether the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility 22 requirements of 28 U.S.C § 1915(a). See Franklin v. Murphy,

, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 23 1984). Mr. Daniels satisfies these requirements, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis 24 is GRANTED. 25 In his Report, Judge Hixson recommended that the case be REMANDED because there is 26 no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over it. See Report at 1. Judge Hixson discussed 27 that the complaint, originally filed by Richmond Essex LP in Contra Costa County Superior Court, 1 alleges only one count of unlawful detainer and therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction. See 2 || Report at 2-3 (collecting cases); Notice of Removal at 2—6. Judge Hixson further discussed that 3 because Mr. Daniels is a California citizen, he may not remove the case based on diversity 4 || jurisdiction. See Report at 3. 5 I have reviewed the Notice of Removal and Judge Hixson’s Report and Recommendation 6 || and agree that Mr. Daniels fails to establish federal jurisdiction. I have also reviewed Mr. Daniels’ 7 objections, Answer, and Counterclaim. In each, he alleges that plaintiff has committed fraud, 8 || breach of contract, and unlawful retaliation resulting in unjust enrichment. Objections [Dkt. No. 9 14] at 2-3; Counterclaims [Dkt. No. 16] at 4-6. He additionally alleges due process violations 10 should he not be permitted to bring his case in federal court. Objections at 4. Mr. Daniels also 11 raises a number of affirmative defenses. Counterclaims at 3. As explained by Judge Hixson, see 12 || Report at 3-4, “anticipated federal defense[s] or counterclaim[s] [are] not sufficient to confer 13 || jurisdiction” in federal court. Report at 3 (collecting cases). Mr. Daniels’s additional filings, 14 || therefore, cannot demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction in this court. Removal was improper. 3 15 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and REMANDS this a 16 || case to Contra Costa County Superior Court. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot. 5 17 |] See Dkt. No. 17. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: July 24, 2025 20 | . 2 □ 21 . Orric 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28