Bhakhri v. Ruiz

Filing 5

ORDER GRANTING 2 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. Show Cause Response due by 3/10/2017. Signed by Judge Jacqueline S. Corley on 2/17/2017. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ASHWANI BHAKHRI,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.17-cv-00740-JSC

v.
RAY RUIZ,
Defendant.

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

14
15

Defendant Ray Ruiz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed this unlawful

16

detainer action to federal court. Defendant invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28

17

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b). As an initial matter, Mr. Ruiz has filed an application to proceed in

18

forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Ruiz to

19

show cause as to why this case should not be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court for

20

lack of subject 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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

8
9

Here, Mr. Ruiz bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the removed
complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Terrenal,

12

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

13

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

14

detainer”).

15

Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of

16

$75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 6

17

(stating that the amount at issue is less than $25,000). Further, only non-resident defendants can

18

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

19

for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th Cir. 2004). Once any “local defendant

20

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

21

by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 628, 629 (N.D. Cal.

22

1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the civil cover sheet alleges that Mr. Ruiz resides

23

in Alameda County and is therefore a citizen of California. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) As Mr. Ruiz is a

24

“local” defendant, removal is improper on this basis as well.

25

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the Mr. Ruiz to SHOW CAUSE as to why

26

this action should not be remanded to state court. Mr. Ruiz shall respond to this Order in writing

27

by March 10, 2017. Failure to respond may result in remand of this case to Alameda County

28

Superior Court.
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2017

3
4
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

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