Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01418/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No.16-cv-01418 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

TRUPTI PATIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DFCS, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-01418 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Trupti Patil filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has federal

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; however, the removal notice did not include 

the state court complaint or docket sheet. In plaintiff's motion to recuse a state court judge, 

Patil appears to refer to the underlying case as a family law matter, which arises 

exclusively out of state law. Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause in writing why 

removal is proper by April 11, 2016. Also by April 11, 2016, 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). 

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

Case 5:16-cv-01418-BLF Document 10 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 16-cv-01418 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

the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over family law matters; rather,

those decisions rest firmly with the state courts. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 

703 (1992) (“[T]he domestic relations exception, as articulated by this Court since Barber, 

divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees”). 

Generally, the removal statute governs only defendants seeking to remove a case 

into federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Here, Patil is listed as the plaintiff in this lawsuit, so 

removal is only proper if Patil is the defendant in the state court action. Additionally, a

defendant seeking to remove a state court proceeding must comply with the procedural 

requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. First, a defendant must file a notice of removal 

that contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy 

of all proceedings, pleadings, and orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Second, removal of an 

action from state court must be brought within 30 days after receipt of the lawsuit by the 

defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

For additional guidance, Patil may refer to the Federal Pro Se Program at the San 

Jose Courthouse, which 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01418-BLF Document 10 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2