Hprof, LLC et al v. Cameron
Filing
5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANTS. Show Cause Response due by 4/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/8/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
HPROF, LLC,
Case No. 13-0058 JSC
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANTS
14
15
16
17
SUSAN CAMERON, and ANTHONY
CAMERON
Defendant.
18
19
Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants in the Superior
20
Court of California for the County of Alameda. Defendants, representing themselves, subsequently
21
purported to remove the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants
22
allege that “Plaintiff has actually filed a Federal Question action in State Court.” (Dkt. No. 1 a 2.)
23
In particular, they explain that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12
24
U.S.C. § 5220, preempts state law as to bona fide residential tenants of foreclosed landlords. (Id.)
25
Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear the burden of establishing
26
that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal
27
jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, when a case is
28
removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal
1
subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The
2
Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and has determined that federal question jurisdiction does
3
not exist.
4
“Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-
5
pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, 2012 WL 2077311 *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). The
6
removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. Therefore, this Court does
7
not have federal question jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311 at *1. That Defendants
8
raise defenses and preemption arguments related to the PTFA is irrelevant; a defendant cannot create
9
federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims, raising defenses, or alleging ordinary
Northern District of California
preemption. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 826, 830-31 (2002); Valles v.
11
United States District Court
10
Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim
12
does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is
13
anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Sue Lin Poh, 2012 WL
14
3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) (remanding removed unlawful detainer action).
15
Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not
16
be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendants believe that this
17
Court has subject matter jurisdiction, they shall file a response in writing by April 22, 2013 that
18
demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants are warned that their failure to file a
19
response will result in remand of this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: April 8, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?