Valencia v. Valencia, 5:17-cv-06581

Defendant Michael Valencia removed an unlawful detainer action from Santa Clara County Superior Court to federal court and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Valencia submitted an affidavit of indigence; the magistrate judge found he met § 1915(a) requirements and granted IFP status.
The plaintiff’s complaint asserts only a state-law unlawful detainer claim seeking possession (amount in controversy indicated under $10,000).
Valencia asserted removal based on alleged federal-law issues but did not identify any federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint or allege diversity of citizenship correctly.
The court noted the continuing duty to verify subject-matter jurisdiction and that removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal invoked federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331	Complaint alleges only state-law unlawful detainer; no federal claim	Removal notice asserted the case depends on federal-law rights and duties	No federal-question jurisdiction; plaintiff’s complaint contains no federal claim; removal cannot rest on defendant’s assertions
Whether removal invoked diversity jurisdiction under § 1332	Amount in controversy and parties’ citizenship support federal jurisdiction	Valencia failed to plead complete diversity or show amount > $75,000; property value not controlling in unlawful detainer	No diversity jurisdiction; amount in controversy < $75,000 and unlawful detainer seeks possession only
Whether the case should be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Federal court lacks jurisdiction and must remand	Defendant sought to keep case in federal court	Case should be remanded to state court; removal was improper
Whether IFP status should be denied as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)	Plaintiff’s state claim only; no frivolousness found	Valencia’s removal lacked merit but IFP affidavit was sufficient	IFP granted based on affidavit, but case still lacks jurisdiction and should be remanded

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (court must dismiss IFP actions that are frivolous or fail to state a claim)
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.) (removal statutes are strictly construed and defendant bears burden to show removal is proper)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (removal procedural requirements and burden on removing party)
Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262 (Sup. Ct.) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs when a case “arises under” federal law)