Paul J. O'Brien v. Ron Carpenter et al

Filing 5

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: Order to Show Cause as to why the Court should not Remand. Defendants must file briefing to the Court explaining the grounds for federal jurisdiction on or before September 12, 2014. Show Cause Hearing set for 9/29/2014 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. If the Court receives no response from Defendants, then the case will be REMANDED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (mt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Date: August 20, 2014

Case No. SACV 14-1323-DOC (JCGx)
Title: PAUL J. O’BRIEN V. RON CARPENTER, ET AL.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT
REMAND
On August 19, 2014, pro se Defendants Ron Carpenter and Yvonne Carpenter
removed this action from Orange County Superior Court. Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1).1
The Carpenters assert that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2.
However, the face of the well-pleaded complaint contains only state law claims for
unlawful detainer. Id. Ex. 1 at 23–27; see Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60
(2009) (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908))
(describing the well-pleaded complaint rule).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). They are obligated to examine sua sponte, i.e. on
their own accord, jurisdictional issues when it appears that they lack subject matter
jurisdiction. B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that
the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).
Here, the only federal issues appear to be the Carpenters’ possible defenses to the
complaint, and do not appear on the face of the complaint.
1

This Court has a duty to interpret pro se pleadings liberally. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Bernhardt
v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-1323-DOC (JCGx)

Date: August 20, 2014
Page 2

Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS both parties to SHOW CAUSE as to why
this case should not be remanded to state court. Parties must file briefing to the Court
explaining the grounds for federal jurisdiction on or before September 12, 2014.
Furthermore, the Court sets a hearing on this matter for Monday, September 29, 2014 at
8:30 a.m.
If the Court receives no response from Defendants, then the case will be
REMANDED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb