Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00148/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 03/09/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BERNABE GARCIA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a 

California Corporation; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00148 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

This case, in which plaintiff Bernabe Garcia is proceeding pro se, is before the Court on 

defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide)’s motions to dismiss and to strike. The 

motions are noticed for hearing on March 11, 2010. For the reasons explained below, the motion 

hearing is vacated, Countrywide’s motions will be denied without prejudice, and Countrywide is 

ordered to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court. 

 Garcia filed his initial complaint in Santa Clara Superior Court in May 2009. The complaint 

alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other state law claims. Countrywide filed a demurrer, 

which Garcia did not oppose. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 14 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

Countrywide represents that Garcia then filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on November 30, 

2009, but no such document has been supplied to this Court. 

Countrywide asserts that Garcia failed to serve it with the FAC. See Cal. Civil Code §§ 

1011, 1012 (providing for ordinary service of pleadings by mail or in-person delivery). 

Countrywide claims it nonetheless obtained a copy of the FAC directly from the Santa Clara 

Superior Court docket on December 18, 2009. Countrywide then removed the action to this Court 

on January 12, 2010. As noted above, the notice of removal contains a copy of Garcia’s original 

May 2009 complaint, but not a copy of the FAC. Nor does the FAC appear anywhere else in this 

Court’s docket, despite Countrywide’s representation that it is in possession of a copy of the 

document. Nonetheless, Countrywide has now filed the instant motions to dismiss and to strike, 

both of which pertain solely to the FAC. 

Section 1446(a) of Title 28 requires removing defendants to “file in the district court of the 

United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal . . 

. , together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or 

defendants in such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (emphasis added). Subsection (b), immediately 

thereafter, provides for the removal of actions such as this one, which, by virtue of an amended 

pleading, may have become removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The subsection further indicates that 

the thirty-day deadline for such removal begins running “after receipt by the defendant, through 

service or otherwise,” of any amended pleading allegedly giving rise to federal jurisdiction. Id. 

(emphasis added). Read together, it is arguable that these two sections do not themselves 

specifically impose a duty on a removing defendant to file any amended complaint in federal court, 

if such defendant has not been served with such a document at the state court level. Nonetheless, as 

any putative removing defendant must bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, such a 

defendant needs to make available to the federal court any amended pleading in its possession which 

it believes may serve as the basis for removal. 

This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 14 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against 

removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, although Countrywide’s 

notice of removal contends that this court has federal question jurisdiction because Garcia’s FAC 

alleges various federal claims, Countrywide’s failure to file a copy of the FAC precludes the court 

from verifying that jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court is unable to reach the pending motions. 

Accordingly, Countrywide’s motions to dismiss and to strike Garcia’s FAC are denied 

without prejudice, and the March 11, 2010, hearing thereon is vacated. Countrywide shall show 

cause, in writing, no later than March 19, 2010, why this action should not be remanded to state 

court due to Countrywide’s failure to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 

the action. Failure of defendants to file a response to the order to show cause will be deemed a 

statement of non-opposition to remand, and may result in summary remand. On or before April 2, 

2010, Garcia may file a reply to Countrywide’s response to the order to show cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/09/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 14 Filed 03/09/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

NO. C 10‐00148 RS 

 ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY 

PROVIDED TO: 

Vanessa Anne Sunshine vanessa.sunshine@bryancave.com 

 delaram.seyedan@bryancave.com 

Christopher Louis Dueringer cldueringer@bryancave.com 

 karina.lopez@bryancave.com 

AND A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Bernabe Garcia 

1108 Woodminister Drive 

San Jose, CA 95121 

Dated: 03/09/2010 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:10-cv-00148-RS Document 14 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 4