Yu v. Carroll
Filing
4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/2/2014 10:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 9/22/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/11/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
BIN YU,
Case No. 14-cv-04101-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
9
10
MICHAEL CARROLL,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On September 10, 2014, Defendant Michael Carroll removed this unlawful detainer action
14
from Contra Costa County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action does not arise
15
under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 2011
16
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 to show cause
19
why this case should not be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Defendant
20
shall file a declaration by September 22, 2014, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on October 2,
21
2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
22
California. In the declaration, Defendant must address how this Court has jurisdiction over
23
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim.
24
Defendant should be mindful that an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not
25
sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,
26
463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). “A case may not be
27
removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is anticipated in
28
the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly
1
at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Quality of the
2
State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d
3
1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer
4
jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated
5
in the plaintiff's complaint.”). Thus, any anticipated defense is not a valid ground for removal.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
Dated: September 11, 2014
______________________________________
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
BIN YU,
Case No. 14-cv-04101-MEJ
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
MICHAEL CARROLL,
Defendant.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 9/11/2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
13
14
15
Michael Carroll
172 Coral Bellway
Oakley, CA 94561
16
17
Dated: 9/11/2014
18
19
20
Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court
21
22
23
By:________________________
Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?