Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03189/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

Case No.: 15-cv-03189 NC

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

KAKIT TSUI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CELSO J. SANCHEZ; FRANCES R. 

SANCHEZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03189 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

The Court issues this order on its own motion, to address concerns regarding the 

apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pro se defendant Celso J. Sanchez removed 

the case to this Court. Dkt. No. 1. While the notice of removal asserts that removal is 

proper based on federal question jurisdiction, there appears to be no basis for this Court’s 

jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, orders Sanchez to show cause why this case should not 

be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

A federal district court must remand a removed case to state court “[i]f at any time before 

the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. 

§ 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that

Case 5:15-cv-03189-EJD Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 15-cv-03189 NC 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

section 1447(c) permits a district court to remand on its own motion for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction). In deciding whether removal was proper, courts strictly construe the 

removal statute against finding jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction 

bears the burden of establishing that removal was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of

Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises 

under” federal law if the complaint establishes “either that federal law creates the cause of 

action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law.” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Provincial Gov’t of 

Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1091. 

As such, it is not enough that a federal question may arise during the litigation in 

connection with a defense or counterclaim raised by the defendant. Franchise Tax Board 

of State of Calif. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Calif., 463 US 1, 10 (1983)

(“For better or worse . . . a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless 

the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.”) (emphasis in 

original).

As to state law claims, original federal jurisdiction may be available where “some 

substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded state claims.” Id. at 13. “[T]he question is, does a state-law claim necessarily 

raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may 

entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state 

judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 

U.S. 308, 314 (2005). 

Here, Sanchez asserts that this case involves a federal question because it implicates 

a federal statute. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 8. Specifically, while Sanchez acknowledges that 

Case 5:15-cv-03189-EJD Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 15-cv-03189 NC 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

plaintiff’s complaint involves an unlawful detainer claim—a state law cause of action—he 

states that he “filed a [sic] answer to the Complaint based on a defective notice, i.e., the 

Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises failed to comply with the Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act [12. U.S.C. § 5220].” Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Sanchez continues that “[f]ederal

question jurisdiction exist [sic] because Defendants’ demurrer a pleading depend on the 

determination of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Id. at ¶ 10.

But plaintiff’s complaint does not involve a federal question; rather, it consists of an 

unlawful detainer claim under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161. Dkt. No. 1 at 4-

6 (“Complaint in Unlawful Detainer”). Indeed, the federal question raised by Sanchez 

arises in connection with his defense. As such he cannot remove the case to federal court

on this basis. See Franchise Tax Bd., 463 US at 10. 

Moreover, Sanchez’s notice of removal provides no explanation for why plaintiff’s 

state law claim should be deemed to arise out of or be predicated on alleged violations of 

federal law. See Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(“[T]he mere reference of a federal statute in a pleading [e.g., notice of removal] will not 

convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action if the federal statute is not a 

necessary element of the state law claim and no preemption exists.”).

Accordingly, the Court orders Sanchez to show cause in writing by August 13, 

2015, why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Additionally, all parties must file a consent or declination to proceed before a 

magistrate judge by July 30, 2015. 28 U.S.C. § 636. If Sanchez fails to respond to the 

order to show cause by August 13, 2015, the Court will remand this action to state court.

For additional guidance, Sanchez may refer to the Court’s Pro Se Handbook, 

available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, or 

contact the Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse, which provides 

information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in civil cases. The Federal 

Pro Se Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in basis. The Federal Pro Se 

Program is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse (Monday to 

Case 5:15-cv-03189-EJD Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 15-cv-03189 NC 4

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

Thursday 1:00 – 4:00 pm), or The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 

3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 pm), or by calling (408) 

297-1480.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03189-EJD Document 6 Filed 07/24/15 Page 4 of 4