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)

Download PDF
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?