Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00051/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441ri Removal- Racketeering (RICO)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAEHEUM TRADING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE HENDERSON, and DOES 1

through 5, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13cv0051 AJB (DHB)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Taeheum Trading, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a limited

civil case in San Diego County Superior Court on December 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 1, Ex.

4.) The Complaint alleged a single cause of action for unlawful detainer and requested

damages not to exceed $10,000. (Id.) Defendant Dave Henderson (“Defendant”)

thereafter filed a notice of removal to this Court on January 7, 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) The

Notice of Removal asserted removal was proper based on the bankruptcy status of

Plaintiff, and that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 

However, after a review of the Complaint and Notice of Removal, the Court finds

it may lack subject matter lack jurisdiction over the instant action. Although Defendant

contends the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and/or

1 13cv51 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00051-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/21/13 Page 1 of 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

federal question jurisdiction, the Complaint states that Plaintiff is a California corporation, (Compl. 2), and the Notice of Removal states that Defendant is a citizen of California, (Removal ¶ 5). Therefore, it appears the parties are not completely diverse. Moreover, the Complaint alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which does not

arise under federal law, and requests no more than $10,000 in damages, far less than the

$75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Finally, even though Defendant contends that the

Court has jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s bankruptcy status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1452(a), which governs removal of claims relating to bankruptcy, Section 1452(a)

requires a district court to first have jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 1334.1

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Defendant to show cause, in writing, as to

why the Court should retain jurisdiction over the matter no later than September 3. 2013.

Plaintiff may file a response no later than September 10, 2013. All documents filed in

opposition or reply must not exceed ten (10) pages in length. The motion hearing on the

order to show cause is hereby set for September 20, 2013 at 2:00pm. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

1

 Section 1334(b) confers upon district courts original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under Title 11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Proceedings “arising under” Title 11 are those proceedings involving a cause of action created or determined by a statutory provision of

Title 11. In re Harris Pine Mills, 44 F.3d 1431, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995).

2 13cv51 AJB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-00051-AJB-DHB Document 6 Filed 08/21/13 Page 2 of 2