Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00275-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

Case No. 15-cv-00275 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN I. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff.

v.

SZE-YAU DEREK YIU,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00275-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 1

The Court issues this order on its own motion, to address concerns regarding 

the apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Alan I. Sherman initiated 

this unlawful detainer action against defendant Sze-Yau Derek Yiu in the Superior 

Court of California, County of Santa Clara. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant Yiu, 

proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court. Id. While the notice of removal 

asserts that removal is proper based on federal question jurisdiction, there appears to 

be no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court orders Yiu to show cause why 

this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

I. DISCUSSION

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 the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

Case 5:15-cv-00275-EJD Document 5 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. 15-cv-00275 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 

784-85 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that section 1447(c) permits a district court to remand 

on its own motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). In deciding whether 

removal was proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute against finding 

jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing that removal was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. 

Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Where 

doubt exists regarding the right to remove an action, it should be resolved in favor of 

remand to state court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 

1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Yiu’s contention that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this 

unlawful detainer action lacks merit. District courts have federal question 

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law if the 

complaint establishes “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the 

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question 

of federal law.” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. 

Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1091. 

Here, the operative complaint alleges an unlawful detainer claim under 

California, not federal law. See Dkt. No. 1 at 6-8. The notice of removal states that 

the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the lawsuit involves a federal 

question. Yiu asserts that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, 

a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties 

under federal law.” Id. at 2, ¶ 10. 

This statement concerning Yiu’s answer in the unlawful detainer action 

Case 5:15-cv-00275-EJD Document 5 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00275 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

cannot create a federal question for the purposes of removal. “[T]he federal 

question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense; rather, 

the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by 

the answer.’” Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1086 (citation omitted). Sherman’s

unlawful detainer complaint does not raise a federal question. 

B. Diversity Jurisdiction

The notice of removal here does not appear to assert that removal is proper 

based on diversity. In any event, the essential elements of diversity jurisdiction 

appear to be lacking. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over “all civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs” and the action is between: “(1) citizens of different 

States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state 

. . . ; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign 

state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizen of a 

State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity 

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the 

relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 

2001). A natural person’s state citizenship is determined by her state of domicile. 

Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). “A person’s 

domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to 

which she intends to return . . . . A person residing in a given state is not necessarily 

domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id.

The notice of removal and the attached unlawful detainer complaint in this 

case fail to indicate that Yiu and Sherman are citizens of different states. If Yiu 

contends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, he must properly 

identify the citizenship of both Yiu and Sherman. Additionally, Yiu must show that 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods 

Case 5:15-cv-00275-EJD Document 5 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Case No. 15-cv-00275 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699-700 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining the different burdens of 

proof that could apply to this showing depending on the circumstances).

II. CONCLUSION

The Court orders Yiu to show cause in writing by February 9, 2015, why this 

case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If 

Yiu fails to respond to the order to show cause by February 9, 2015, the Court will 

remand this action to state court. Both Yiu and Sherman are reminded that they 

must either file written consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, or request 

reassignment to a district judge, by March 25, 2015, the deadline for filing the initial 

case management conference statement. See Civ. L.R. 73-1(a)(1).

For additional guidance, Yiu may refer to the Court’s Pro Se Handbook, 

available on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, or 

contact the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center (FLASH), which provides 

information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in civil cases. FLASH 

requires an appointment, which can be made by calling 408-998-5298, ext. 311.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015

___________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00275-EJD Document 5 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 4