Cathay Bank v. Michael Weston et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Monday, November 5, 2012 showing cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant should also deliver a courtesy copy to chambers. (lc). Modified on 10/26/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CATHAY BANK, a California
Banking corporation,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

MICHAEL WESTON, an
individual,

16

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08341 DDP (FMOx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

17
18

Defendant is ordered to show cause why this action should not

19

be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

20

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint on July 25, 2012.

21

On September 27, 2012, Defendant removed to this court, asserting

22

federal question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal 2:18-3:6.)

23

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), a defendant may remove to federal

24

court “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have

25

original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the

26

Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States . . . .”

27

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a

28

suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement

1

of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal

2

law.”

3

quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . .

5

federal question jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated

6

counterclaim.”

7

of Plaintiff’s complaint suggests a federal question, and Defendant

8

offers no support for his assertion that the matter presents a

9

federal question.

10

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal

Id.

“Federal law cannot be
Nor can

(citations omitted). Here, nothing on the face

The court notes that the Defendant has the burden of

11

establishing removal jurisdiction.

12

Defendant to file a brief, not to exceed ten pages, by Monday,

13

November 5, 2012 showing cause why this action should not be

14

remanded for lack of jurisdiction.

15

courtesy copy to chambers, Room 244-J, Second Floor, 312 N. Spring

16

Street, Los Angeles.

17

explanatory brief as consent to remand this matter.

Accordingly, the court orders

Defendant should also deliver a

The court will regard any failure to file an

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: October 26, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2