Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

Filing 12

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - Order to show cause re subject matter jurisdiction by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Because Defendant has not offered a viable basis for jurisdiction, the Court orders Defendant to show cause in writing by November 22, 2017 why the Court should not remand this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond as ordered may result in this case being remanded to state court. (smo)

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

CV 17-1886 PSG (DFMx)

Title

Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 7, 2017

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order to show cause re subject matter jurisdiction

Before the Court is a notice of removal filed by Defendant Anthony Nguyen
(“Defendant”). See Dkt. # 1 (“NOR”). After reviewing the notice, the Court is not convinced
that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to show cause why
this matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity
between the parties and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). If at any time
before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c); International Primate Prot. League v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S.
72, 87 (1991). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party
seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip
Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to propriety of
removal, federal jurisdiction must be rejected. See id.
Defendant asserts that jurisdiction exists on the bases of both a federal question and
diversity. See NOR at 13. Having reviewed Defendant’s notice, the Court concludes that there
is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Defendant premises federal question jurisdiction on
his invocation of the Fair Debt Collections Act in his cross-complaint. See id. However, federal
defenses or federal counterclaims provide no basis to remove an action that does not otherwise
establish federal jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation
Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). Accordingly, there is no basis for federal question
jurisdiction.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 17-1886 PSG (DFMx)

Date

Title

November 7, 2017

Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

As for diversity jurisdiction, which requires both complete diversity and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Thien
Tran (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of Vietnam, while Defendant is a citizen of Nevada. See NOR at
12. He also implies that the amount in controversy may be as high as $150,000, which is the
amount of attorneys’ fees that Plaintiff purportedly acquired from Defendant through fraud and
criminal activities. See id. However, it is unclear from the notice of removal and the documents
attached to it what precisely is being removed. The Court cannot tell what state action is being
removed, and therefore cannot ascertain the amount in controversy or whether removal would be
improper. Therefore, it cannot determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
Because Defendant has not offered a viable basis for jurisdiction, the Court orders
Defendant to show cause in writing by November 22, 2017 why the Court should not remand
this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond as ordered
may result in this case being remanded to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2