Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00011/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York
Plaintiff
Jamie R. Tarin
Defendant
Joe T. Tarin
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMIE R. TARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00011-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants Jamie R. Tarin

and Joe T. Tarin in the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. Defendants, 

proceeding pro se, removed this action from Contra Costa County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises 

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal 

law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing 

that removal is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2009). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court “if at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Case 3:15-cv-00011-VC Document 4 Filed 01/13/15 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

Here, Defendants allege diversity jurisdiction; however, they have not established that the 

parties are diverse or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Instead, the face of the 

state court complaint states that the amount demanded is less than $25,000. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 8.) 

Further, even were Defendants’ contentions as to federal jurisdiction maintainable, Defendants 

appear to be citizens of California as the underlying complaint alleges that they occupy property in 

California. The removal therefore contravenes the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) that precludes 

removal where any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought (the “no 

local defendant rule”).

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE as to why 

this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendants shall respond to this Order in 

writing by January 27, 2015. Failure to respond will result in remand of this case to the Contra 

Costa Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00011-VC Document 4 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2