Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00835/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00835-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grace Miles
Defendant
Tishau Partners
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Further, even if defendant is not a California citizen, which seems unlikely, there does not

appear to be a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the complaint states that it seeks damages less than

$10,000, far below the $75,000 amount in controversy necessary to invoke diversity jurisdiction. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TISHAU PARTNERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GRACE MILES,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-0835 SI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO

STATE COURT FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION

On February 26, 2010, pro se defendant Grace Miles removed this unlawful detainer action from

state court. From the face of the complaint, this Court lacks jurisdiction. There are no federal claims

alleged in the lawsuit. Where there is no federal question jurisdiction, an action is not removable on the

basis of diversity of citizenship if the defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b). Here, Ms. Miles appears to be a citizen of California, and thus removal

is improper.1

Accordingly, defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than 2:00 pm

on March 5, 2010 why this case should not be remanded to the Superior Court for the County of

San Mateo. If Ms. Miles asserts that removal was proper and this Court has jurisdiction, she must

specifically identify the basis for jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00835-SI Document 5 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 1