Menhardt v. Tracy

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 20, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-08670
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 BEATRIX MENHARDT, Case No. 20-cv-08670-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER IN RESPONSE TO 12 JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFS v. AND REMANDING TO STATE 13 COURT MELISSA TRACY, and MEREK TEJA, 14 Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 11 Defendants. 15 16 17 On December 24, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff Menhardt and Defendants Tracy 18 and Teja to show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded due to lack of 19 subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 9. In their brief, Tracy and Teja point to case law stating 20 that “a claim arises under federal law if federal law provides a necessary element of the 21 plaintiff’s claim for relief.” Jones v. R.R. Donnelley Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 376 (2004) 22 (citing to Christianson v. Colt Indust. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988)); see 23 ECF 10 at 2. However, a necessary element is not just any element of a federal claim; a 24 necessary element is only established when “the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily 25 depends on resolution of a substantial question.” Christianson, 486 U.S. at 808. 26 In her Response, Menhardt clarifies that a “substantial” federal question is one that 27 questions a federal statute’s validity or interpretation or challenges a federal agency or 1 F.3d 895, 905 (9th Cir. 2020); ECF 11 at 3-4. A “fact-bound and situation-specific” issue 2 || is not substantial. City of Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905. Menhardt asserts that the only federal 3 || issue here, if any, is whether her property is covered by the federal CARES Act. See ECF 4 || 11 at4. Tracy and Teja assert that the federal issue is whether Menhardt obtained a 5 || mortgage deferment under the federal CARES Act. See ECF 10 at 2. Both questions are 6 || fact-bound and situation-specific and are therefore not substantial federal questions. See 7 City of Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905. Thus, the Court FINDS that there is no federal question 8 || jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Santa Cruz County Superior 9 || Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: January 20, 2021 h-_———— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS = 13 United States Magistrate Judge

o 17

1g

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28