Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03594/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03594-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

Case No.:15-cv-03594-NC 

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

LUCY GAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONIA MING-JIU CHIOU,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-03594-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

RE: JURISDICTION

Defendant Sonia Chiou filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has federal 

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the underlying complaint, Lucy Gao 

brought a limited action for unlawful detainer, which arises exclusively out of state law. 

Accordingly, defendant must show cause in writing why removal is proper by August 17, 

2015. 

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). 

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over “all civil 

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

between citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Case 5:15-cv-03594-NC Document 7 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:15-cv-03594-NC 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

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, removal to federal court is only proper when 

“a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Federal jurisdiction cannot be 

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense . . . [n]or can federal jurisdiction rest upon 

an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

A federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the action. Fielder v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); 

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Here, Chiou alleges in her notice of removal that Gao is violating the Fair Housing 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, her defense to the unlawful detainer action. This is insufficient as a 

basis for removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense.

Chiou cites to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 

545 U.S. 308 (2005) as a basis for jurisdiction. In that case, the Supreme Court determined 

that there was a narrow exception to the general rule stated above. A federal court can 

have jurisdiction over state law claims, lacking diversity, if the state law claims “turn on 

substantial questions of federal law,” and “only if federal jurisdiction is consistent with 

congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts 

governing the application of § 1331.” Id. at 312, 313-14. The underlying complaint is an 

unlawful detainer cause of action, a state law claim, and it does not implicate federal laws 

on its face. Dkt. No. 1-1. Chiou must provide more to demonstrate that this case fits 

within the narrow exception of Grable, permitting federal jurisdiction for state law claims 

that implicate substantial questions of federal law. 

If defendant does not demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will 

be remanded back to Santa Clara County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03594-NC Document 7 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2