Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eberwein

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/16/17. Show Cause Response due by 5/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL.,,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13

No. C 17-02619 JSW

v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ROBERT EBERWEIN,
Defendant.

/

14
15

Federal courts have a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte

16

at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v.

17

United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). It appears that this Court lacks jurisdiction to

18

hear this matter.

19

On April 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in Superior Court for the

20

County of Mendocino (the “State Court action”) against Defendant Robert Eberwein (“Defendant”).

21

(See Notice of Removal.) On May 5, 2017, Defendant removed the State Court action on the basis

22

that jurisdiction is premised upon a federal question. (See id.) “[A]ny civil action brought in a State

23

court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by

24

the defendant . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

25

place where such action is pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463

26

U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

27
28

However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal

1

jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is

2

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th

3

Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction

4

must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d

5

at 566.

6

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded

7

complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The well-pleaded

8

complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid

9

federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint
rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a

12

substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).

13

The State Court action is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law does not create

14

the cause of action. Moreover, the Court finds that the claim will not necessarily depend upon the

15

resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiffs need not prove compliance with

16

the federal law relied upon by Defendant to establish its claim. See, e.g., Grable & Sons Metal

17

Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005).

18

Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint

19

gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question, even if the

20

defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 10, 14; see

21

also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal

22

court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is

23

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

24

the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks

25

subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as currently pled and must remand to the state court.

26

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992).

27
28
2

1

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ISSUES this order to show cause to Defendant to respond

2

in writing by no later than May 31, 2017 why this case should not be remanded to the Superior

3

Court of the State of California for the County of Mendocino. Should Defendant fail to respond, this

4

case shall be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2017
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3