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
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?