Andina Property LLC v. Fox ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDINA PROPERTY LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00320-JSC 8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER v. 9 10 LAURA FOX, ET AL., Defendant. 11 12 13 Tom Hernandez of-the Ramirez-family, proceeding without an attorney and in forma 14 pauperis, removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Mr. Hernandez invokes federal 15 subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b). As an initial matter, Mr. Hernandez 16 has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The 17 Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to show cause as to (1) how he has standing to remove 18 the action from state court, and (2) why this case should not be remanded to the San Francisco 19 Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 As a threshold matter, it is not clear that Mr. Hernandez has standing to remove the 21 complaint because he is not listed as a party on the state-court complaint. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 22 (“any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 23 original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of 24 the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is 25 pending.”)(emphasis added); Anaya v. QuickTrim, LLC, No. CV 12-1967-CAS DTBX, 2012 WL 26 6590825, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012) (holding that nonparty putative class member had no 27 standing to remove a state court action to federal court); Hous. Auth. of City of Atlanta, Ga. v. 1 is a “precondition for the district court to have removal jurisdiction”). Further, “[w]hen a civil 2 action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and 3 served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2). 4 Even if Mr. Hernandez has standing, it does not appear that there is a basis for federal 5 subject matter jurisdiction. A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court 6 so long as the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter 7 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an 8 amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 10 A claim “arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action 11 based on federal law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. 12 Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the 13 burden of establishing that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed 14 against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 15 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an 16 independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. 17 Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be 18 remanded back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 19 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 20 Here, Mr. Hernandez bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the 21 removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. While Mr. Hernandez 22 lists several federal statutes in his notice of removal, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 23 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 24 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not 25 be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense[.]”); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. 26 Terrenal, No. 12–5540, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for 27 asserting federal claim jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for 1 threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. 2 No. 5-2 at 4 (stating that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000). 3 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to SHOW CAUSE as to why 4 || this action should not be remanded to state court. Mr. Hernandez shall respond to this Order in 5 writing by February 24, 2020. If Mr. Hernandez fails to respond or his response fails to establish 6 a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will prepare a report and recommendation 7 recommending that a district judge remand the action to the San Francisco County Superior Court. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: February 4, 2020 11 ne JAQC®UELINE SCOTT CORLE 13 United States Magistrate Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDINA PROPERTY LLC, 7 Case No. 20-cv-00320-JSC Plaintiff, 8 9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 LAURA FOX, et al., Defendants. 11 12 . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 13 = District Court, Northern District of California. 14 That on February 4, 2020, ISERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 15 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 16 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 17 = receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Z 18 19 Tom Hernandez 2919 25th Avenue 20 San Francisco, CA 94132-1539 21 22 Dated: February 4, 2020 23 24 Susan Y. Soong 25 Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 By: 28 Ada Means, Deputy/Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY