Li v. Taliguli et al

Filing 9

ORDER TO DEFENDANTS to show cause why case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants to file written response by 12/9/2022. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/21/2022. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 5:22-cv-07188-NC Document 9 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 VIVIAN Y. LI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. BALATI YAKUFUJIANG and YUSUFU TALIGULI, Defendants. 16 Case No. 22-cv-07188 NC ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED BACK TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Re: ECF 1 17 18 Defendants Balati Yakufujiang and Yusufu Taliguli removed this unlawful detainer 19 case to this court from Santa Clara County Superior Court on November 16, 2022. ECF 1. 20 This Order requires the Defendants to “show cause” by filing a written response by 21 December 9, 2022, explaining why the case should not be remanded back to Superior 22 Court. 23 The federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” and only have jurisdiction as 24 authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 25 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The party seeking to invoke federal court jurisdiction (here, the 26 defendants) has the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. 27 Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court must presume a lack of 28 jurisdiction until the party asserting jurisdiction establishes otherwise. Id. Case 5:22-cv-07188-NC Document 9 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 jurisdiction, and (2) diversity jurisdiction. I consider each jurisdictional source in turn. “Federal question” jurisdiction is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The federal 4 district courts have jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or 5 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law if a 6 “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or 7 that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question 8 of federal law.” Empire Healthcare Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006) 9 (citations omitted). 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction in this case are: (1) federal question “Diversity jurisdiction” is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court considers 11 the citizenship of each party to the lawsuit, and there must be “total diversity” of 12 citizenship between each plaintiff and each defendant and the amount in controversy in the 13 suit must exceed $75,000. 14 Applied here, the removal notice asserts that the unlawful detainer complaint 15 presents a “federal question” because the complaint presents “federal questions” and a 16 demurrer in state court “depend on the determination of . . . rights under federal law.” Dkt. 17 No. 1 ¶ 5, 10. But the sole claim in the complaint is for unlawful detainer under California 18 state law. There does not appear to be a substantial question of federal law that is 19 implicated by plaintiff’s complaint. Nor is there diversity of citizenship shown. 20 Additionally, defendants have not satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) by filing a copy of 21 “all process, pleadings and orders served upon such defendant.” For example, defendants 22 filed only the first page of a demurrer to the complaint, ECF 1 at p. 12. 23 Finally, the removal notice does not appear to be timely. Notice of removal of a 24 civil action shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt of the initial pleading by 25 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Here, the demurrer at ECF 1 p. 12 was filed by 26 defendants on September 14, so defendants apparently knew of the complaint by that date 27 at the latest. November 16 (the date of removal) is more than 30 days after September 14. 28 If a case removed from state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then the federal 2 Case 5:22-cv-07188-NC Document 9 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3 1 court must remand it back to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). An order remanding may 2 require payment of just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a 3 result of the removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 4 5 jurisdiction is satisfied; the removal does not appear timely; and they did not file all 6 pleadings from state court. This Order requires the defendants to “show cause” by filing a 7 written response by December 9, 2022, explaining why the case should not be remanded 8 back to Superior Court. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California In conclusion, defendants have not established that federal subject matter Finally, the Court informs defendants that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San 10 Jose Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se 11 litigants in federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by appointment and 12 on a drop-in basis. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by calling (408) 297 -1480. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: November 21, 2022 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?