Weaver v. Kruse ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 JOY E. WEAVER, Case No. 5:22-cv-07103 EJD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 9 v. REMANDED TO STATE COURT 10 NICOLE KRUSE, 11 Defendant. 12 13 On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff Weaver brought this state-law unlawful detainer action 14 against Defendant Kruse in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara seeking 15 to evict Defendant from real property located in Mountain View. ECF No. 1 at 5. Defendant Kruse, 16 appearing pro se, subsequently removed the action on November 14, 2022. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 17 A defendant may remove an action from state court to a federal court of original jurisdiction. 18 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Once a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 19 obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 20 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The removed action must be remanded back to state court “if 21 at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 22 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 establishes original 23 jurisdiction over a civil action that arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 24 Federal courts also have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) where there is complete 25 diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. “Federal question 26 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ING 27 Bank, FSB v. Pineda, No. 12-cv-2418, 2012 WL 2077311, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). “[A]n 1 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. . . . [and] 2 [t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of 3 Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). 4 Defendant Kruse bases removal on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 5 1331. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5, 14. However, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only unlawful detainer under 6 California law; it does not implicate a substantial question of federal law. Id. at 5 (“Complaint for 7 Unlawful Detainer”). In the Notice of Removal, Defendant argues that the complaint alleges a 8 federal cause of action and states that Plaintiff intends to violate Defendant’s protection under the 9 Tenant Protection Act of 2019 “in an effort to evade the rent cap.”1 Id. ¶¶ 10–11, 14. Defendant 10 further provides that Plaintiff’s complaint “fails to allege compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 11 1968[] & Tenant Protection [A]ct of 2019” but Defendant provides no further detail as to these 12 allegations. Id. ¶ 6. Even if Plaintiff has a valid counterclaim or defense, however, neither provides 13 a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60 (“Federal jurisdiction cannot be 14 predicated on an actual or anticipated defense. . . . Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual 15 or anticipated counterclaim.”). 16 Moreover, Defendant does not allege that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 17 1332(a)(1), as both parties appear to reside in California—and therefore are not diverse—and the 18 amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 because the face of the complaint states that the 19 damages do not exceed $10,000. See ECF No. 1 at 5. 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Defendant Kruse to SHOW CAUSE as to why 21 this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendant shall respond to this order in writing 22 no later than January 17, 2023. Failure to respond to the Court’s order will result in remand of this 23 case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. 24 Finally, the Court informs Defendant that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 25 Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal 26 civil cases. Help is provided by appointment and on a drop-in basis. The program is located in the 27 1 ] United States Courthouse at 280 South 1st Street in San Jose, and parties may make appointments 2 || by calling the program’s staff attorney, Mr. Haohao Song, at 408-297-1480. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 29, 2022 EDWARD J. DAVILA 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CYnCdD TH Vina Matriee □□□□□ AcTIMAT