Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04255/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

Case Nos. 16-cv-04255-NC, 16-cv-03612 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

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUSTEE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM CUTLIP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 16-cv-04255 NC

 16-cv-03612 NC 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Defendant William Cutlip filed a notice of removal in these identical unlawful 

detainer cases, alleging that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. In the underlying complaints, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trustee Company 

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

Accordingly, Cutlip must show cause in writing why removal is proper by August 8, 2016. 

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 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 5 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 4
Case Nos. 16-cv-04255-NC, 16-cv-03612 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). 

Cutlip’s removal states that the unlawful detainer action deprived him of due 

process and equal protection rights under federal law. This is insufficient as a basis for 

removal because federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense. If defendant 

does not demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded back to 

Santa Clara County Superior Court.

All parties are reminded that they must either consent to or decline the jurisdiction 

of a U.S. magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636. A form is attached to make this 

decision. Both parties are asked to file this form within 14 days.

Also attached is a letter providing guidance to additional resources the Court 

provides pro se litigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 5 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 4
Case Nos. 16-cv-04255-NC, 16-cv-03612 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUSTEE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM CUTLIP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case Nos. 16-cv-04255-NC

 16-cv-03612 NC 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether 

you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) 

choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form 

below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to 

have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, 

including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment 

shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United 

States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request 

that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: NAME:

COUNSEL FOR:

(OR “PRO SE:)

__________________________________

Signature

Case 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 5 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 4
Case Nos. 16-cv-04255-NC, 16-cv-03612 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

280 South 1st Street

San Jose, CA 95113

www.cand.uscourts.gov

SUSAN Y. SOONG GENERALCOURT NUMBER

CLERK OF COURT 408-535-5363

To: Pro Se Litigant

Re: Representing Yourself Before This Court

Dear Pro Se Litigant:

If you are representing yourself in federal court without representation by an attorney, 

that is called proceeding “pro se.” The court has free resources to help you find your way 

through the court system and procedures. The Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose 

Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in 

federal civil cases. The Federal Pro Se Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in 

basis. The Federal Pro Se Program is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States 

Courthouse (Monday to Thursday 1:00 – 4:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), and The

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to 

Thursday 9:00 am –12:00 pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling (408) 297-1480.

There are also online resources available on the court’s webpage. The Pro Se

Handbook, found at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, has a downloadable version 

of the court’s own publication: Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro 

Se Litigants. Pay special attention to the Civil Litigation Packets tab on the left, which 

provides useful fillable forms. The Pro Se Handbook website also has a link to the Court’s

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) website.

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

Case 5:16-cv-04255-BLF Document 5 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 4