Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07825/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ZALEZ 9004 LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMY FRANCISCO, CHERYLL 

FRANCISCO,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07825 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

REMOVAL WAS PROPER AND 

WHY THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION OVER 

THE CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Jimmy and Cheryll Francisco removed this case to federal court from Monterey 

County Superior Court alleging federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Upon review of the notice of removal and the state court complaint, the Court is concerned 

that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because no federal question is presented in the 

complaint. Further, the Court is concerned that removal from state court was improper 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 because (1) the removing parties are not listed as defendants in the 

state court complaint, and (2) the defendants listed in the state court complaint have not 

consented to removal. 

First, “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires 

that the action arise under federal law. Here, the removing parties state that the action 

arises under “12 U.S.C. § 5201,” the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.”

Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3. However, the state court complaint filed by plaintiff Zalez appears to be 

an unlawful detainer action for eviction arising under state law. Id., Ex. A. Thus, no 

Case 3:19-cv-07825-WHO Document 5 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 2
 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

federal question seems present to warrant removal to federal court.

Second, Jimmy Francisco and Cheryll Francisco are not listed as defendants in the 

state court complaint. Rather, that document names “John Miller” and “Sara Miller” as 

defendants. Id. at 5. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), “[a] defendant or defendants desiring to

remove any civil action from a State court” must file a notice of removal. (Emphasis 

added). The statute goes on to state that when an action is removed, “all defendants who 

have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Here—whether the Franciscos are actually defendants at all, 

which is not entirely clear—the removal notice does not include any consent to removal 

from John Miller or Sara Miller. Thus, removal is not proper.

The Court hereby ORDERS Jimmy Francisco and Cheryll Francisco to show cause

(1) why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and (2) why removal was 

proper. A written response to the Court’s concerns must be filed by January 10, 2020. If 

the Court is not satisfied that it has jurisdiction and that removal was proper, the case will 

be remanded back to Monterey County Superior Court. 

Finally, because they are proceeding pro se, the Court directs the Franciscos to its

the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides free information and limited-scope legal 

advice to pro se litigants in federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is located in 

Room 2070 of the San Jose United States Courthouse, and is available by appointment 

Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. and can be reached by phone at (408) 

297-1480. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2019 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07825-WHO Document 5 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 2