Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04501/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

Case No. 15-cv-04501-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

R. TOD SPIEKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TANYSIA WYLIE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-04501-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant Wylie filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the underlying complaint, R. Tod Spieker 

brought a limited action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively out of state law. 

Accordingly, Wylie must show cause in writing why removal is proper by October 15, 

2015. Also by October 15, 2015, the parties must consent or decline to the jurisdiction of a 

United State 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 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-04501-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 15-cv-04501-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

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).

Here, Wylie alleges in her notice of removal that the Superior Court for the County 

of Santa Clara did not sustain her Demurrer based on a defective notice. This is 

insufficient as a basis for removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on 

a defense. If Wylie does not demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will 

be remanded back to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

For additional guidance, the Court has attached a letter to direct Wylie to the 

Court’s online resources for persons representing themselves.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04501-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 15-cv-04501-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R. TOD SPIEKER, doing business

as THE PINES,

Plaintiff(s)

v.

TANYSIA WYLIE, aka TANYSIA L. WYLIE,

CHARLES JEFFERS, DOES I through V, inclusive

Defendant(s).

Case No. 15-cv-04501-NC 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION 

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party) or 

the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge 

jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

☐ Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a 

United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and 

entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

☐ Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States 

magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be 

reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: ________________, 20__ NAME:

COUNSEL FOR 

(OR “PRO SE”): 

Signature

Case 5:15-cv-04501-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 15-cv-04501-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

280 South 1st Street

San Jose, CA 95113

www.cand.uscourts.gov

SUSAN Y. SOONG GENERALCOURT NUMBER

CLERK OF COURT 408-535-5363

To: Pro Se Litigant

Re: Representing Yourself Before This Court

Dear Pro Se Litigant:

If you are representing yourself in federal court without representation by an attorney, 

that is called proceeding “pro se.” The court has free resources to help you find your way 

through the court system and procedures. The Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 

Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in 

federal 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, on Friday by appointment only), and The

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to 

Thursday 9:00 am –12:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling (408) 297-1480.

There are also online resources available on the court’s webpage. The Pro Se

Handbook, found at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, has a downloadable version 

of the court’s own publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro 

Se Litigants. Pay special attention to the Civil Litigation Packets tab on the left, which 

provides useful fillable forms. The Pro Se Handbook website also has a link to the Court’s

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) website.

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

Case 5:15-cv-04501-EJD Document 6 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4