Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02181/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02181-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-02181-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-02181-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED 

TO STATE COURT 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

Defendant Mr. Sepehry-Fard has removed this state court unlawful detainer action to 

federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (Dkt. 1) and has filed cross claims against numerous 

Cross Defendants (Dkt. 4). Cross Defendants have not been served as of this Order. 

“At any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua sponte remand a case to state 

court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Lucore, 2018 

WL 5832197, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). Section 1443 states that 

a state court proceeding may be removed to federal court if it is “[a]gainst any person who is 

denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal 

civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof,” or 

“[f]or any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for 

refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1443. The Supreme Court has held that “the phrase ‘any law providing for . . . equal civil rights’ 

must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial 

equality.” Georgia. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966). Removal is therefore appropriate where 

the party seeking removal “asserts . . . rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment 

Case 5:19-cv-02181-EJD Document 8 Filed 04/24/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:19-cv-02181-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 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 Californi

a

protecting equal racial civil rights [and] that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that 

allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that 

purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Bartlett v. Citibank, N.A., 2019 

WL 199943, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019) (citing Rachel, 384 U.S. at 794-804). “The burden of 

proof is on the party invoking the removal statute.” Lucore, 2018 WL 5832197, at *4. 

On their face, neither the removal notice nor the cross claims identify a statute protecting 

equal racial rights that the state court in the underlying action will not enforce, nor a state law or 

constitutional provision that directs the state court to ignore those rights. Dkt. 1; Dkt. 4. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that before 8:00 a.m. P.D.T. on Thursday, April 25, 

2019, Mr. Sepehry-Fard must file a brief with the Court showing cause why this case should not 

be remanded to state court. Plaintiff shall have until 1:00 p.m. P.D.T. on Thursday, April 25, 2019 

to respond. The Court will then take the matter under submission. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-02181-EJD Document 8 Filed 04/24/19 Page 2 of 2