Hprof, LLC v. Gagni et al

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 8/2/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

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,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16
17

Case No. 13-cv-3280 JSC
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

OMAR GAGNI, HELEN GAGNI, and
DOES 1-5, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

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

20

Superior Court of California for the County of Solano seeking to evict Defendants from real

21

property located at 4941 Paramount Way, Fairfield, California. Defendants subsequently

22

purported to remove the action to this Court asserting federal question jurisdiction.

23

Defendants have filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) The

24

Court has reviewed the IFP Application and finds that Defendants qualify. Therefore, the

25

IFP Application is GRANTED.

26

Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear 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. 1-1, p. 10.) Therefore, this Court does not have federal question

9

jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1. That Defendants’ answer 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, Defendants are ordered to show cause why this case should not be

15

remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendants believe that this

16

Court has subject matter jurisdiction, they shall file a response in writing by August 2, 2013

17

that demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants are 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: July 19, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2