Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02914/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02914-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Property Damage (P.I.)

---

1 

Case No.: 10-CV-02914-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHERRY LANE, LLC 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LEONILA PONO and MERELO PONO; and 

DOES 1 to 20, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 10-CV-02914-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 

Defendants Leonila Pono and Merelo Pono removed this action for unlawful detainer from 

the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on July 1, 2010. However, the Public Access Case 

Information Site for the Santa Clara Superior Court indicates that this action was resolved in the 

Superior Court on June 17, 2010. Therefore, it appears that there is no case or controversy, and the 

case must be dismissed as moot. 

Additionally, if a case or controversy still exists, it appears that the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the removed action. Although Plaintiff has not moved to remand, this 

Court has a continuing obligation to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction whenever it appears 

that jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 

1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, that 

Case 5:10-cv-02914-LHK Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case No.: 10-CV-02914-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

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 

action must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants bear the burden of establishing that 

removal is proper. Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

In the notice of removal, Defendants assert that grounds for removal exist because their 

principal claim for relief arises under federal law. However, a defendant may remove a case to 

federal court only if "the plaintiff 's complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law." 

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). It is wellsettled that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. Id. at 14. 

Rather, "the federal question must 'be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the 

answer.'" Provincial Gov't of Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1086 (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. 

Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974)). Because Plaintiff's complaint for unlawful detainer 

raises no federal claims, there appears to be no basis for removal and no subject matter jurisdiction 

in this Court. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall show cause why this action should not be 

1) dismissed as moot, or 2) remanded to state court. Defendants shall file a written response not to 

exceed 5 pages no later than 2 p.m. on August 30, 2010. Plaintiff may also file a submission 

addressing the issues by the same date. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2010 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:10-cv-02914-LHK Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 2