California Equity Management Group, Inc. v. Jimenez

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANT. Show Cause Response due by 4/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

Download PDF
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 CALIFORNIA EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 13-cv-1222 JSC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANT v. 15 16 17 AURORA JIMENEZ and DOES 1-10, Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants Aurora 20 Jimenez and Does 1-10 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. 21 Defendant Jimenez, representing herself, subsequently purported to remove the action to this 22 Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendant alleges that “[t]he complaint 23 presents federal questions.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.) In particular, she explains that “Defendants’ 24 demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties 25 under federal law.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) 26 Defendant, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bears the burden of 27 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal 28 statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to 2 satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 3 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and determined 4 that federal question jurisdiction does not exist. 5 “Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of 6 a well-pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, No. 12-2418, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1 7 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). The removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful 8 detainer. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-10.) Therefore, this Court does not have federal question 9 jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1. That Defendant’s demurrer raised Northern District of California federal questions is irrelevant; a defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by 11 United States District Court 10 adding claims or raising defenses. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 12 826, 830-31 (2002); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Sue Lin Poh, No. 12-2707, 2012 WL 13 3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) (remanding removed unlawful detainer action). 14 Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to show cause why this case should not be 15 remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendant believes that this 16 Court has subject matter jurisdiction, she shall file a response in writing by April 15, 2013 17 that demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendant is warned that failure to file a 18 response may result in remand of this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: March 25, 2013 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 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?