Caldarulo et al v. Elite Real Estate, LLC et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Plaintiffs why the Court should not remand this action to state court, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 BECKY CALDARULO, and RAYMOND FOSSINGER, 12 Case No. C17-1333RSL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 ELITE REAL ESTATE LLC, a Washington State Limited Liability Company and Muhammad Doe, et al. Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On September 12, 2017, Becky Caldarulo and Raymond Fossinger removed to this Court what appears to be a landlord-tenant matter in King County Superior Court. Dkt. # 1. They assert that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The party seeking a federal venue has the burden of establishing this Court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction, In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008), and the Court may sua sponte consider the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time during the proceeding, Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The general removal statute, 28 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 U.S.C. § 1441, is construed restrictively, meaning if there is substantial doubt whether a case 2 should be in federal court, the Court will remand the case back to state court. See, e.g., 3 Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108–09 (1941); Durham v. Lockheed 4 Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants have the burden of proving by a 5 preponderance of the evidence that removal is appropriate under the statute. 6 Plaintiffs’ short complaint makes very brief reference to federal law. That brief reference 7 is: “PLAINTIFF’S due process rights were violated when DEENDANTS [sic] were given 8 improper and harmful instructions in violation of their rights under the AMERICAN [sic] WITH 9 DISABILITIES ACT.” Dkt. # 4 at 3. The complaint is not entirely clear, but it appears an 10 investor bought the building where plaintiffs live through a foreclosure sale and then sought to 11 evict the building’s residents. Disputes between landlords and tenants usually fall under state 12 law or municipal ordinance. For example, the City of Seattle’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, 13 which appears in Section 22.206.160 of the Seattle Municipal Code, explains that owners cannot 14 take certain actions against tenants. See also Evictions,, 15 codesrules/commonquestions/evictions (last visited Sep. 12, 2017) (providing resources for 16 Seattleites with questions about eviction). Owners also have certain duties and obligations under 17 parts of the Washington Landlord-Tenant Act that appear in Chapter 59.12 of the Revised Code 18 of Washington. For that reason, state or municipal courts, not federal courts, usually resolve 19 landlord-tenant disputes. Even though plaintiffs mention “due process” and the Americans with 20 Disabilities Act, they do not establish a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. 21 Plaintiffs are accordingly ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before Friday, October 22 6, 2017, why the Court should not remand this action to state court. The Clerk of Court is 23 directed to note this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s calendar for Friday, October 6, 2017. 24 DATED this 21st day of September, 2017. 25 A Robert S. Lasnik 26 27 United States District Judge 28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 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?