PMI Waterford Park, LLC v. Carter

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 9, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

10 PMI WATERFORD PARK, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-00081-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS 12 TO WHY THIS CASE SHOULD v. NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT TOMMY CARTER, and others, 14 Re: ECF 1 Defendants. 15 16 17 Before the Court is Defendants Tommy-Lee Carter and Lisa-Lorraine Willis’ 18 Notice of Removal (“Notice”). ECF 1. However, the underlying state court case appears 19 to be an unlawful detainer action. See id., Exhibit. Because such a claim does not appear 20 to confer federal jurisdiction, the Court ORDERS Defendants to address, in writing, why 21 this case should remain in federal court. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 24 States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant” to the district court 25 where the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statute is strictly construed 26 against removal jurisdiction, and defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 27 proper. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 1 favor of remand to state court. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th 2 Cir. 2009). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 3 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 The primary issue underlying Defendants’ Notice is whether this Court has 6 jurisdiction over the case. The federal removal statute “requires that a federal court have 7 original jurisdiction over an action in order for it to be removed from a state court.” 8 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 34 (2002). Generally, federal 9 jurisdiction in a removal action is based on either (1) the presence of a federal question, (2) 10 diversity of citizenship between the parties, or (3) an express grant of statutory authority. 11 See Coffey v. Ripple Labs Inc., 333 F. Supp. 3d 952, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also 28 12 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 13 Here, the Court cannot discern any basis for its jurisdiction. First, Defendants do 14 not satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction because they failed to allege the 15 citizenship of any party or the requisite amount in controversy. See Kubler v. Gen. Motors 16 LLC, No. 23-cv-04325-SI, 2023 WL 7104940, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023) (“When 17 removal is based on diversity of citizenship, in addition to complete diversity of 18 citizenship, an amount in controversy requirement must be met.”). 19 Second, Defendants fail to allege the presence of a federal question justifying 20 removal. “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 21 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 22 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 23 California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). This rule restricts the 24 defendant to the four corners of the plaintiff’s statement of its claim and prevents removal 25 even in the face of anticipated federal defenses. Id. In this case, the only cause of action 26 appears to be for unlawful detainer which does not arise under federal law. JP Morgan 27 Chase Bank, Nat. Ass’n v. Chavez, No. 12-cv-00941 JW, 2012 WL 1142538, at *1 (N.D. 1 || USC § 3708” fails because, as noted above, anticipated federal defenses cannot confer 2 || federal jurisdiction. 3 Lastly, Defendants have not alleged an express authorization by an Act of Congress. 4 || See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 5 || 1. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the above, Defendants must address these issues in writing by February 2, 7 || 2024. However, the Court cautions that if the matter necessitates remanding the case to 8 || state court, Defendants may be required to pay “just costs and any actual expenses, 9 || including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 10 The Court informs Defendants that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 11 || Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in 12 || federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by phone appointment at 13 |} (408) 297-1480. There are also online resources available on the Court’s webpage. The C 14 || Pro Se Handbook, found at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/ has a 3 15 |} downloadable version of the Court’s publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: 16 || A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: January 9, 2024 h&-—_———~ _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28