Federal National Mortage Association v. Portillo

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT BECAUSE OF LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/27/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/27/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, a/k/a FANNIE MAE,

8

Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-949 SI
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO
STATE COURT BECAUSE OF LACK OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION

v.
NICOLAS PORTILLO, et al.,
Defendants.

/

12
13

On February 24, 2012, pro se defendant Nicolas Portillo removed this unlawful detainer action

14

from state court. From the face of the complaint, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded

15

complaint rule, the basis for removal jurisdiction must be evident from the complaint. See Franchise

16

Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for So. California, 463 U.S. 1, 9-12

17

(1983). There are no federal claims alleged in the complaint. Where there is no federal question

18

jurisdiction, an action is not removable on the basis of diversity of citizenship if the defendant is a

19

citizen of the state in which the action was brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b). Here, defendants

20

appear to be California residents, and thus removal is improper.

21

Accordingly, defendant Portillo is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing to be filed no

22

later than March 7, 2012 why this case should not be remanded to the Superior Court for the

23

County of Sonoma. If defendant asserts that removal was proper and this Court has jurisdiction,

24

defendant must specifically identify the basis for jurisdiction.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge