Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ANDINA PROPERTY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA FOX, ET AL.,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-00320-JSC 

SCREENING ORDER

Tom Hernandez of-the Ramirez-family, proceeding without an attorney and in forma 

pauperis, removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court. Mr. Hernandez invokes federal 

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b). As an initial matter, Mr. Hernandez 

has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The 

Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to show cause as to (1) how he has standing to remove 

the action from state court, and (2) why this case should not be remanded to the San Francisco 

Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

As a threshold matter, it is not clear that Mr. Hernandez has standing to remove the 

complaint because he is not listed as a party on the state-court complaint. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 

(“any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of 

the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is 

pending.”)(emphasis added); Anaya v. QuickTrim, LLC, No. CV 12-1967-CAS DTBX, 2012 WL 

6590825, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012) (holding that nonparty putative class member had no 

standing to remove a state court action to federal court); Hous. Auth. of City of Atlanta, Ga. v. 

Millwood, 472 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 1973) (holding that status as a party to the state court action 

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 4
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

is a “precondition for the district court to have removal jurisdiction”). Further, “[w]hen a civil 

action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and 

served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2).

Even if Mr. Hernandez has standing, it does not appear that there is a basis for federal 

subject matter jurisdiction. A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court 

so long as the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an 

amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

A claim “arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action

based on federal law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. 

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the 

burden of establishing that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed 

against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 

1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an 

independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be 

remanded back to state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Here, Mr. Hernandez bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the 

removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. While Mr. Hernandez 

lists several federal statutes in his notice of removal, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

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

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not 

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense[.]”); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. 

Terrenal, No. 12–5540, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for 

asserting federal claim jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for 

unlawful detainer”). Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional 

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 4
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

threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. 

No. 5-2 at 4 (stating that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000). 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Mr. Hernandez to SHOW CAUSE as to why 

this action should not be remanded to state court. Mr. Hernandez shall respond to this Order in 

writing by February 24, 2020. If Mr. Hernandez fails to respond or his response fails to establish 

a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will prepare a report and recommendation 

recommending that a district judge remand the action to the San Francisco County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 4
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

ANDINA PROPERTY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURA FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00320-JSC 

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 February 4, 2020, 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.

Tom Hernandez

2919 25th Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94132-1539 

Dated: February 4, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 4:20-cv-00320-PJH Document 6 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 4