H & H Property Management, Inc. v. Taylor

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 1/2/2014 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 12/19/2013.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/4/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (cdnS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

H & H PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-05549-MEJ
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
TYRONE T. TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On December 2, 2013, Defendant(s) Tyrone T. Taylor, et al. removed this unlawful

14

detainer action from Alameda County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action does

15

not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen,

16

2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL

17

4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, it appears that jurisdiction is lacking and the case

18

should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant(s) to show cause

19

why this case should not be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. Defendant(s) shall

20

file a declaration by December 19, 2013, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on January 2, 2013

21

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. In

22

the declaration, Defendant(s) must address how this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

23

unlawful detainer claim.

24

Defendant(s) should be mindful that an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not

25

sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Construction Laborers

26

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir.1994). “A case

27

may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is

28

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only

1

question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health

2

and Environmental Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

3

Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-

4

law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal

5

preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”).

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: December 4, 2013
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2