Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Flores et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANTS. Show Cause Response due by 10/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/23/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2013)

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

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-4352 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANTS

14
15
16
17

IRENE B. FLORES, and PANFILO L.
FLORES,
Defendants.

18
19

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

20

Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo seeking to evict Defendants from

21

real property located at 203 Bay Ridge Drive, Daly City, California. Defendants,

22

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

23

basis of diversity and/or federal question 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 jurisdiction does not exist.

3

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

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 and state that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 3.)

9

However, the face of the state court complaint states that the amount demanded is less than

10

$10,000. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 5.) Defendants therefore cannot satisfy the amount in controversy

11
Northern District of California

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

5

United States District Court

4

requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, nor has Defendant established that Plaintiff is a

12

citizen of a different state. Further, even were Defendants’ contentions as to the parties’

13

respective citizenships and the amount in controversy supportable, Defendants appear to be

14

citizens of California as the underlying complaint alleges that they are in possession of

15

property in California. The removal therefore contravenes the provision of 28 U.S.C. §

16

1441(b) that precludes removal where any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the

17

action was brought (the “no local defendant rule”).

18

Any claim based on federal question jurisdiction likewise fails. “Federal question

19

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-pleaded

20

complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, No. 12-2418, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

21

June 8, 2012). The removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer.

22

(Dkt. No. 1-1, p. 10.) Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. ING

23

Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1.

24

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

25

should not be remanded to the San Mateo County Superior Court. In particular, if

26

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

27

writing by October 15, 2013 that demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants

28

2

1

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

2

court for lack of federal jurisdiction.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 23, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3