Bank of America NA v. Johnny Beavers

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge George H. Wu: The parties are currently scheduled to appear before this Court on February 16, 2017 for a status conference. The Court orders Defendant to show cause in writing no later than February 13, 2017 why this action should not be remanded for: (1) failure to file with this Court a copy of the state court complaint against him and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court willalso entertain any argument the parties wish to present on those issues at the status conference. (cr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 16-9289-GW(MRWx)

Title Bank of America NA v. Johnny Beavers
Present: The Honorable

February 7, 2017
Page

1 of 2

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez
Deputy Clerk

None Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) – ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Bank of America NA sued Defendant Johnny Beavers in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court in an unlawful detainer action. See generally Notice of Removal ¶ 9,
Docket No. 1. Defendant removed the case to this Court alleging diversity and federal question
jurisdiction. See id. ¶¶ 3-7, 8-12. The burden of proving jurisdictional facts falls on the party
invoking federal jurisdiction. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.
2001). Because Defendant involved the Court’s jurisdiction here, he must prove that jurisdiction
is proper.
As an initial matter, Defendant has not filed a copy of the state court complaint against
him with his notice of removal, violating the procedural requirements set forth by the removal
statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Moreover, based on the facts outlined in his notice of removal,
the Court cannot find that he has carried his burden to establish the grounds for removal as
discussed below.
Defendant first claims complete diversity. See Notice of Removal ¶ 4. Defendant,
however, also alleges that he is a citizen of California. See id. ¶ 5. As such, Defendant is a
“local defendant,” which precludes removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b)(2); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc. Before Trial
(“Schwarzer”) §§ 2:2320, 2:3117 (The Rutter Group 2016).
Defendant next claims violations of his due process rights and, on that basis, alleges
federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal ¶ 8-12. Under the well-pleaded complaint
rule, however, federal courts consider only what necessarily appears in plaintiff’s statement of its
claim at the time of removal, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of
defenses the defendant may interpose. Schwarzer § 2:730 (citing Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-9289-GW(MRWx)

Title Bank of America NA v. Johnny Beavers

Date

February 7, 2017
Page

2 of 2

74, 75-76 (1914); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826,
830 (2002)). Here, Defendant claims that federal question exists because Plaintiff cannot
establish a right to evict Defendant without proper notice. See Notice of Removal ¶ 12
(“Defendant alleges a federal question exists as to this matter having originated from the denial
of his due process rights and whether Plaintiff can establish any right to evict Defendant without
appropriate notice.”). However, Plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer action, relying solely on
state law. See id. ¶ 9; see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“The
[well-pleaded complaint] rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid
federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”); see also Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809 n.6 (1986) (“Jurisdiction may not be sustained on a theory
that the plaintiff has not advanced.”); Great North R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918)
(“[T]he plaintiff may by the allegations of his complaint determine the status with respect to
removability of a case.”). Defendant therefore necessarily interposes either a counterclaim or a
defense to Plaintiff’s claim by asserting, as he does here, that a federal right is implicated –
which is prima facie insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Holmes Group,
535 U.S. at 831; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 66-67 (2009) (“[C]ounterclaims, even if
they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court
cognizance.”); Schwarzer § 2:730. As such, Defendant cannot rely on federal question
jurisdiction for removal.
The parties are currently scheduled to appear before this Court on February 16, 2017 for a
status conference. The Court orders Defendant to show cause in writing no later than February
13, 2017 why this action should not be remanded for: (1) failure to file with this Court a copy of
the state court complaint against him and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will
also entertain any argument the parties wish to present on those issues at the status conference.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG