Lopez et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al, No. 1:2010cv01332 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court; and ORDER DISMISSING Matter With Prejudice, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/23/2010. Copy of remand order sent to Kern County Superior Court. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
Lopez et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 OLGA LOPEZ ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, UNITED ) STATES OF AMERICA, REAL PARTY IN ) INTEREST, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) Case No. 1:10-cv-01332 LJO JLT ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND DISMISSING THE MATTER WITH PREJUDICE (Docs. 1, 2, 4, 6) 18 19 Olga Lopez is a self-represented litigant who sought to proceed in forma pauperis in an 20 unlawful detainer action that she sought to remove from the Kern County Superior Court. The matter 21 was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304. 22 On July 30, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to proceed in forma 23 pauperis (“IFP”) be denied because, after screening the notice of removal, the Court concluded that 24 the matter was frivolous or malicious and filed for purposes of delay. (Doc. 4) Moreover, the 25 Magistrate Judge recommended that the matter be remanded to the Kern County Superior Court and 26 it be dismissed with prejudice. 27 28 On August 4, 2010, Lopez filed an Amended Notice of Removal. (Doc. 5) On August 5, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed an Amended Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 6) Once again, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) be denied 2 because, after screening the amended notice of removal, the Court concluded that the matter was 3 frivolous or malicious and filed for purposes of delay. (Doc. 6) Moreover, the Magistrate Judge 4 recommended that the matter be remanded to the Kern County Superior Court and it be dismissed 5 with prejudice. (Doc. 6) 6 In particular, the Magistrate Judge found that there was insufficient evidence of federal court 7 jurisdiction because that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and there was no 8 evidence that the parties’ citizenship was diverse. (Doc. 6) Moreover, the notice of removal was not 9 timely, there was no evidence that the co-defendant agreed with the removal and judgment had been 10 issued already by the Kern County Superior Court. Id. 11 12 Although Lopez was granted 14 days from August 5, 2010, or until August 20, 2010, to file objections to the Amended Findings and Recommendations, she did not. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 14 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 15 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and 16 recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The amended findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2010, are ADOPTED IN 19 FULL; and 20 21 2. The matter is remanded to the Kern County Superior Court and the matter is dismissed with prejudice; and 22 23 3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action because this order terminates the action in its entirety. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d August 23, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2