Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00733/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kalib M. Babcock
Defendant
Wendy Hughes
Defendant
Morehouse Homes, Inc.
Plaintiff
Spencer David Company, Inc.
Plaintiff

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

MOREHOUSE HOMES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KALIB M. BABCOCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00733-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATIONS

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Morehouse Homes, Inc. and Spencer David Company, Inc. brought an unlawful 

detainer action in state court against Defendants Kalib Babcock and Wendy Hughes. Defendants, 

proceeding pro se, removed the case to this Court. See Notice of Removal (dkt. 1). Defendants 

are hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the California 

Superior Court, by filing a brief no later than April 9, 2015, and attending a hearing on April 10, 

2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom G of the San Francisco federal courthouse at 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue.

II. APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Both Defendants have filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts. 2, 3. Good 

cause showing, Defendants‟ applications are GRANTED.

III. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 

within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 

could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 

construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 3
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

313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 

removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the burden of 

showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, Defendants‟ Notice of Removal invokes federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of 

Removal ¶¶ 7−10.1 Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions that 

arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case 

„arises under‟ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or „where the 

vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.‟” 

Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the „well-pleaded 

complaint rule,‟ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the plaintiff‟s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 

392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may 

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of California state law. Defendants‟ Notice of 

Removal states that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant‟s Answer, a pleading depend 

[sic] on the determination of Defendant‟s rights and Plaintiff‟s duties under federal law.” Notice 

of Removal ¶ 10. Even if that is so, a federal defense presented in the Answer provides no basis 

for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not 

be remanded to the California Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa, by filing a brief not 

to exceed ten double-spaced pages no later than April 9, 2015. A hearing will occur on Friday, 

April 10, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom G, located on the 15th floor of the federal courthouse at 

 

1 Defendants have not invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and there is 

no indication that diversity jurisdiction applies. All parties appear to be citizens of California.

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 3
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

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Defendants are required to attend.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants are ORDERED to show cause why this case 

should not be remanded for lack of federal jurisdiction. If Defendants fail to comply with this 

Order, the case will be remanded and Defendants may face monetary sanctions.

Defendants are encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project‟s Legal Help 

Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses for assistance. The San 

Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th floor at 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in Room 470-S on the 4th floor 

at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made by calling (415) 782-8982 

or signing up in the appointment book located outside either office. Lawyers at the Legal Help 

Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal 

representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00733-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 3