Yarbrough v. Harris

Filing 7

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/6/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

PATRICIA YARBROUGH,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
JACQUELINE PAVIA HARRIS,
Defendant.

14
15

Case No. 16-cv-02412-JSC

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND ORDER TO
DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE
AS TO WHY THIS CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED
TO STATE COURT
Re: Dkt. No. 3

Defendant Jacqueline Harris, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed this

16

unlawful detainer action to federal court. Defendant Harris invokes federal subject matter

17

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As an initial matter, Harris has filed an application to

18

proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court, however, ORDERS

19

Harris to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject

20

matter jurisdiction.

21

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal

22

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28

23

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in

24

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil

25

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises

26

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal

27

law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover

28

1

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing

2

that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal

3

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th

4

Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent

5

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

6

Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded

7

back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

8

subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Here, Harris bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the removed

10

complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. Harris’s allegation that her answer

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

raises questions regarding “Defendant’s rights and Plaintiffs duties under federal law” (see Dkt.

12

No. 1 at 2) is of no moment because “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

13

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

14

482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court

15

on the basis of a federal defense[.]”) (emphasis in original); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.

16

Terrenal, No. 12–5540, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for

17

asserting federal claim jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for

18

unlawful detainer”).

19

Further, although the Notice of Removal does not allege jurisdiction based on diversity,

20

such jurisdiction does not exist in this case. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was filed in

21

superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less than $10,000 in controversy. (Dkt. No. 1

22

at 6.) As such, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00

23

for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a). In addition, only non-resident

24

defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Spencer v.

25

U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any

26

“local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action cannot be removed by

27

that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp.

28

628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the civil cover sheet alleges
2

1

that Harris resides in Contra Costa County and is therefore a citizen of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at

2

12.) As Harris is a “local” defendant, removal is improper on this basis as well.

3

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Harris to SHOW CAUSE as to why this

4

action should not be remanded to state court. Harris shall respond to this Order in writing by

5

May 27, 2016. Failure to respond will result in remand of this case to Contra Costa County

6

Superior Court.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2016

9
10
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
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
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PATRICIA YARBROUGH,

Case No. 16-cv-02412-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

JACQUELINE PAVIA HARRIS,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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 May 6, 2016, 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.

18
19
20

Jacqueline Pavia Harris
5402 Solano Avenue
Richmond, CA 94805

21
22

Dated: May 6, 2016

23
24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
4