Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04060/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04060-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

Case No. 16-cv-04060 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

TUAN ANH PHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARGARITA AGUILERA,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-04060-NC 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND

TO SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK 

OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Defendant Margarita Aguilera filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has 

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On July 25, 2016, this Court ordered 

defendant to show cause why removal was proper. Dkt. No. 5. Defendant failed to 

respond. The parties also failed to comply with the Court’s order to consent to or decline 

its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to a 

district court judge and RECOMMENDS that the district court REMAND the action to the 

Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On July 19, 2016, defendant Margarita Aguilera filed a notice of removal alleging 

that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint is 

not attached, but from the notice of removal, it appears that in the underlying complaint, 

plaintiffs brought a limited action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively out of 

state law. This Court ordered Aguilera to show cause why federal jurisdiction was proper 

by August 15, 2016. Aguilera did not respond.

Case 5:16-cv-04060-EJD Document 8 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 16-cv-04060 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

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). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is 

between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because it appears that plaintiffs’ cause of action in state court arises under state law. 

Aguilera also has not alleged that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. 

Aguilera states that she is challenging the state court’s refusal to dismiss the case. 

However, “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . 

. [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. 

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

Thus, Aguilera has failed to show federal subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action. Because no party has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c), this Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this 

case.

Therefore, this Court REFERS this case for REASSIGNMENT to a district court 

judge and RECOMMENDS that the suit be REMANDED to the Superior Court of 

California for Santa Clara County. Any party may object to this order, but must do so

within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04060-EJD Document 8 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2