Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00932/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00932-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

SARIA TSENG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOEY GOGUE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00932-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Saria Tseng sued defendants Joey and Miriam Gogue in Santa Clara 

County Superior Court for unlawful detainer. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendants removed 

Tseng’s lawsuit citing the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., as the 

basis for federal question jurisdiction. In particular, Defendants claim that Tseng violated 

the FHA by discriminating against them. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 9–25.

Defendants’ notice of removal, however, contains two defects. First, it is wellsettled that for removal jurisdiction, the federal question must be presented by the 

plaintiff’s complaint. See Jasper v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 757, 

765 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[F]ederal question jurisdiction exists only when ‘a federal question 

is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’”) (quoting Caterpillar, 

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Thus, “removability cannot be created by 

defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal question.” Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l 

Case 5:20-cv-00932-NC Document 6 Filed 02/10/20 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

Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, 530 

F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir. 1975)). Here, Tseng’s complaint raises only a state-law 

unlawful detainer claim. Because Defendants’ FCA defenses or counter-claims cannot 

form the basis of federal question jurisdiction, it is not apparent why this lawsuit belongs 

in this Court.

Second, “[a]ll defendants must join in a removal petition with the exception of 

nominal parties.” Hewitt v. Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b)). “A defendant is a nominal party where his role is limited to that of a 

stakeholder or depositary.” Id. at 1233. Although Defendants’ removal petition notes that 

“[a]ll Defendants consent to the removal of this action” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 27), two defendants 

in the state-court lawsuit were not named as parties to this action. See id. at 8. It is unclear 

whether those two defendants joined Defendants’ removal petition.

Thus, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 appears improper. Accordingly, the 

Court ORDERS Defendants to show cause in writing by February 24, 2020, why this case 

should not be remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Court will not award 

attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this order. However, the Court alerts all 

parties that attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of this removal can be awarded to 

Tseng. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The Court directs Defendants to 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 in the San Jose United States Courthouse, 

and is available by appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The Program 

can be reached by calling (408) 297-1480.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00932-NC Document 6 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2