(UD)(PS)Hodge

(UD)(PS)Hodge v. Glass

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 13, 20202:20-cv-00504California815 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HODGE, No. 2:20-cv-00504-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER GLASS et. al., Defendant.

17 On March 5, 2020, defendants Geoff Glass and Karen Glass (collectively “defendants”), proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Defendants also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 3, 4. As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis. I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION A. Legal Standard When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 28 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.