Braga et al v. Braga

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING #2 DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 9/22/2021. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/8/2021. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2021)

Case 5:21-cv-06331-BLF Document 8 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8
9

DOROTHY CATHERINE BRAGA, by and
through the Conservator of her Person and
her Estate, Mary Ann Warren, the Public
Guardian of the County of Santa Clara,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

STEPHEN JOSEPH BRAGA,

Case No. 21-cv-06331-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD
NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendant.
13
14
15
16

On August 16, 2021, Defendant Stephen Joseph Braga filed a Notice of Removal,

17

purporting to remove this probate action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant

18

also filed an application to proceed in district court in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The case action

19

was reassigned to the undersigned judge on August 27, 2021.

20

Defendant’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

21

Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and on or before September 22,

22

2021, why this action should not be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for lack

23

of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the document attached to the Notice of Removal,

24

titled “Notice of Hearing – Guardianship or Conservatorship,” it appears that this probate action

25

involves a petition to quiet title to real property brought by Plaintiff Dorothy C. Braga, by and

26

through the Conservator of her Person and her Estate, Mary Ann Warren, the Public Guardian of

27

the County of Santa Clara. “The probate exception to federal jurisdiction reserves probate matters

28

to state probate courts and precludes federal courts from disposing of property in the custody of a

Case 5:21-cv-06331-BLF Document 8 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2

1

state court.” Goncalves By & Through Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d

2

1237, 1251 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006)). The present

3

action appears to fall squarely within this exception to federal jurisdiction. The Court notes that

4

Defendant refers to numerous federal statutes in the Notice of Removal. The relevance of those

5

statutes to the probate matter is unclear. Even if one or more of those federal statutes could be

6

raised as a defense to the probate action, “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual

7

or anticipated defense.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

If Defendant fails to respond to the Order to Show Cause, or does respond but fails to
establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over this state probate action, the action will
be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: September 8, 2021
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2