Oshay v. Robinson et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 7/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/1/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2013)

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

FREDERICK OSHAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-2890 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANTS

14
15
16
17

PHYLLIS ROBINSON, ALARIC
ROBINSON, DOES 1-10 inclusive, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants in the

20

Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa seeking to evict Defendants

21

from real property located at 2851 Anderson Lane, Brentwood, California. Defendants,

22

representing themselves, subsequently purported to remove the action to this Court on the

23

basis of diversity jurisdiction.

24

Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear the burden of

25

establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal

26

statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir.

27

1992). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent

28

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate

1

Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court has reviewed the Notice of

2

Removal and has determined that federal diversity jurisdiction does not exist.

3

Jurisdiction founded on diversity “requires that the parties be in complete diversity

4

and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

5

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Complete diversity means that “each of the plaintiffs

6

must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v.

7

Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendants allege that diversity jurisdiction

8

exists because the Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and they are citizens of California and that

9

the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000. However, the face of the state court

Northern District of California

complaint clearly states that the amount demanded is less than $10,000. (Dkt. No. 1-1, p. 6.)

11
United States District Court

10

Defendants therefore cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for federal

12

diversity jurisdiction.

13

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why this case

14

should not be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. In particular, if

15

Defendants believe that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, they shall file a response in

16

writing by July 22, 2013 that demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants are

17

warned that their failure to file a response will result in remand of this action to state court

18

for lack of federal jurisdiction.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: July 1, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2