Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02158/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HSBC Bank USA
Plaintiff
Kenny Kieu
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK USA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNY KIEU,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-02158 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

REMANDING CASE

On May 19, 2010, Defendant Kenny Kieu filed a notice of removal and an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court

HEREBY DENIES Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and REMANDS this

action to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

On February 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in Santa Clara

County Superior Court against Defendant (the “State Court action”). (See Notice of Removal.) 

Defendant removed the State Court action on the basis that jurisdiction is premised upon a

federal question. (See Notice of Removal.) “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of

which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

defendant ... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

place where such action is pending.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,

463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, the burden of 

Case 3:10-cv-02158-JSW Document 16 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal, and

the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in

the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The wellpleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or

she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the

well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd.,

463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). 

The State Court action is an unlawful detainer action and, thus, federal law does not

create the cause of action. Moreover, the Court concludes that the claim will not necessarily

depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, because Plaintiff need not

prove compliance with the federal law relied upon by Defendants to establish its claim. See,

e.g., Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng. & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-15 (2005). 

Furthermore, a court cannot exercise removal jurisdiction on the ground that the

complaint gives rise to a potential or an anticipated defense that might raise a federal question,

even if the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. Franchise Tax Board, 463

U.S. at 10, 14; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties

concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original). 

Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter and must

remand to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782,

785 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 3:10-cv-02158-JSW Document 16 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Alameda County Superior Court. The

Court DENIES Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02158-JSW Document 16 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK USA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNY KIEU et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV10-02158 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 20, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Kenny Kieu

493 Verano Court

San Jose, CA 95111

Dated: July 20, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:10-cv-02158-JSW Document 16 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 4