Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04431/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04431-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1 It appears that there may be an error in paragraph 14, because it suggests that

this case was originally filed in Orange County Superior Court. Moreover, the Notice of

Removal filed by Greenpoint does not refer to diversity jurisdiction as a basis for subject

matter jurisdiction.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXINE EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GREEN POINT MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-04431 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant GMAC Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In its motion, GMAC asserts that “[t]he true

change Plaintiff made to her FAC was to drop the federal claim so as to have the case

remanded.” Defendant Green Point Mortgage originally removed this case from the Superior

Court of the State of California for the County of Marin on the basis that this Court had subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, Plaintiff asserts only state law

claims in her FAC, and it is not apparent from the face of the FAC that this Court has subject

matter jurisdiction over those claims. Indeed, Plaintiff suggests in her FAC that the matter

should be remanded to state court. (FAC ¶ 14.)1

 Although Plaintiff has not moved to remand,

federal courts have a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at

any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v.

United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Case 3:09-cv-04431-JSW Document 33 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit briefs addressing

whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The parties’ opening

response to this Order to Show Cause each shall be due on January 15, 2010, and shall be

limited to seven (7) pages. The parties each may respond to the other’s response by no later

than January 22, 2010. No replies shall be permitted unless ordered by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04431-JSW Document 33 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2