Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wei Chuan Cao
Plaintiff
Therese A. Kelly
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEI CHUAN CAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERESE A. KELLY, and DOES 1-

10,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00921-GEB-AC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On May 2, 2016, Defendant Therese Kelly filed a Notice 

of Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior 

Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. (Notice of 

Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court 

sua sponte remands this case to the court from which it was 

removed for lack of removal subject matter jurisdiction.

“There is a ‘strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction,’ and the removing party has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Defendant asserts in the Notice of Removal (“NOR”) that 

removal is premised both on federal question and diversity 

 

* The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a 

Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this 

case.

Case 2:16-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 05/04/16 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

2

removal jurisdiction. (NOR & 5.) Defendant has not established 

diversity jurisdiction in his removal notice and Defendant 

indicates in a conclusory manner that the basis of federal 

question jurisdiction exists because “[t]he purchase and sell of 

securities involved . . . [removant’s] federally related 

mortgage.” (Id. ¶ 9.)

However, review of the complaint reveals Plaintiff 

alleges a single unlawful detainer claim under California law.

Therefore, Defendant has not shown the existence of removal 

subject matter jurisdiction.

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin.

DATED: May 3, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00921-GEB-AC Document 3 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2