Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00378-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMIKA LASHONDA TILLIS, No. CIV.S-06-0378 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DATALINE CREDIT CORP.,

a California corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by

filing her complaint in the Small Claims Division of the Sacramento

County Superior Court. Defendant filed a notice of removal in this

court on February 23, 2006.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil

action may remove a case from state court to federal district court

if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if

there is diversity of citizenship between the parties or if the

action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); see also 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction).

Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal. 

See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v.

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.

1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769,

771 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, in seeking the removal of the small claims action

against it, defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction by virtue

of plaintiff’s “claims that arise under the Fair Credit Reporting

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.” (Notice of Removal at 2.) However,

plaintiff’s claim in state court, a copy of which is attached to the

notice of removal, does not so clearly allege a violation of federal

law. Rather, the claim alleges that defendant owes plaintiff money

due to: “1. Defamation of Credit Character 2. Fraud 3. 

California Fair Credit Reporting Act” (emphasis added). Liberally

construed, therefore, plaintiff’s claim alleges a violation of the

California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code, §

1785.1 et seq. To be sure, while there is no “California Fair Credit

Reporting Act,” plaintiff chose to initiate this action in California

state court and explicitly makes reference to California in her

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 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

3

attempted credit reporting claim. Thus, there is no indication that

federal question jurisdiction exists.

Nor is there any indication that diversity jurisdiction

exists, plaintiff and defendant both being citizens of California and

plaintiff seeking damages of $5,000.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall show

cause in writing within ten (10) days why this matter should not be

remanded to state court. Failure to timely file the required writing

will result in a recommendation that this state small claims matter

be summarily remanded to the Small Claims Division of the Sacramento

County Superior Court.

DATED: February 28, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\tillis.osc.remand

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 4 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 3