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)

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