Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00520/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBIE WHITCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASON MONTOYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00520-JSC 

SCREENING ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3

Defendants Jason and Carol Montoya, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed 

this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Defendants invoke federal subject matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. As an initial matter, two applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis were filed with Defendants’ Notice of Removal. (Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3.) Although both 

applications state that they are submitted by Jason Montoya, the information in the applications is 

different and the signatures are not the same. Accordingly, the applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis are DENIED without prejudice to renewal. 

In addition, the Court ORDERS Defendants to show cause as to why this case should not 

be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal court 

has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises 

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal 

law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. 

Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded 

back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Here, Defendants base removal on federal question jurisdiction. Despite Defendants’ 

argument to the contrary, the removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful 

detainer. (Compare Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 5 with Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Defendants’ additional contention that 

federal question jurisdiction exists because the demurrer “depend[s] on the determination of 

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law” is unavailing. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 10.) 

“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) 

(“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 

defense[.]”). Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold 

of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 6

(stating that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000). 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE as to why this 

action should not be remanded to state court. Defendants shall respond to this Order in writing by 

February 20, 2019. Defendants shall also submit renewed applications to proceed in forma 

pauperis or pay the filing fee by February 20, 2019. If Defendants fail to respond or their

response fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will prepare a 

report and recommendation recommending that a district judge remand the action to the Contra 

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Costa County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00520-YGR Document 6 Filed 01/30/19 Page 3 of 3