Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04060/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04060-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION

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 it 

appears that in the underlying complaint, plaintiffs brought a limited action for unlawful 

detainer, which arises exclusively out of state law. Accordingly, defendant must show 

cause in writing why removal is proper by August 5, 2016. The state court complaint must 

also be submitted to the Court. Also by August 5, 2016, the parties must consent or 

decline to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, by submitting the form 

attached. 

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 

Case 5:16-cv-04060-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/25/16 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

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). 

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, removal to federal court is only proper when 

“a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Federal 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). A 

federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over the action. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Aguilera states that the unlawful detainer action deprived her of rights under federal 

law. This is insufficient as a basis for removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot 

be based on a defense. If defendant does not demonstrate federal subject matter 

jurisdiction, this case will be remanded back to Monterey County Superior Court.

For additional guidance, defendant 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 

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 25, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04060-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/25/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUAN ANH PHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARGARITA AGUILERA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04060-NC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 25, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Trinh Law

99 North First Street

Suite 200

San Jose, Ca 95113 

Margarita Aguilera

166 Jessica Way

San Jose, CA 95121 

Dated: July 25, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lili Harrell, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

Case 5:16-cv-04060-EJD Document 5 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 3