Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80031/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-mc-80031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Everett
Defendant
John Lee
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN LEE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DANIEL EVERETT

Defendant.

CASE NO. 20-mc-80031-YGR 

ORDER REMANDING FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. No. 2 

The Court has received the Petition for Removal and Application to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis, both filed on February 7, 2020, by Daniel Everett. To the Petition for Removal, Everett 

attached a copy of a “Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders” filed in the Superior 

Court of California, County of San Francisco, by John F. Lee seeking protection from Daniel 

Everett “SBN 154323.” In his petition for removal, Everett indicates that he “brings this action” 

based on the 1964 civil Rights Act.” 

The petition was directed to the undersigned based upon a pre-filing order issued August 

14, 2013, by Judge Claudia Wilken in Northern District of California Case Nos. 13-cv-2706 and 

13-cv-0628. (See copy of pre-filing order at Dkt. No. 1-2 herein.) That pre-filing order prohibited 

defendant Daniel Everett from filing additional petitions for removal of Case No CUD 12-642905 

from San Francisco Superior Court without establishing legitimate grounds for federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

The Court finds that the instant petition is not prohibited by that pre-filing order because it 

is not, on its face, related to CUD 12-642905. While the petition herein does reference an eviction 

from a commercial office space, it is not clear whether such eviction is the same unlawful detainer 

matter as referenced in Judge Wilken’s 

However, the instant petition does not establish legitimate grounds for federal subject 

Case 3:20-mc-80031-YGR Document 4 Filed 03/02/20 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 Californi

a

matter jurisdiction. 

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). Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal 

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have no power to consider claims for which they lack 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). 

Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by U.S. ex. 

Rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 792 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2015). Under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss an action that fails to state a claim upon which the 

federal court may grant relief, including one in which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Further, 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). 

The removing defendant “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). 

Here, the Court is without jurisdiction over the underlying state civil harassment 

restraining order action. Defendant Everett’s filings do not establish a basis for federal subject 

matter jurisdiction either on the basis of a federal question or on the basis of complete diversity of 

citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 

As to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1), Everett’s petition indicates the 

parties’ citizenships are not diverse. 

As to jurisdiction under section 1331, Everett’s suggestion that he may be seeking to raise 

defenses or counterclaims under federal anti-discrimination laws is insufficient to establish federal 

subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction under section 1331 requires that the civil action arise 

under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under” federal law 

only if the 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). 

Thus, a defendant’s counterclaims and defenses asserting a federal question cannot give rise to 

jurisdiction. Id. 

Case 3:20-mc-80031-YGR Document 4 Filed 03/02/20 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 Californi

a

Therefore, the Court finds that Everett has failed to establish a basis for federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND this action to the Superior 

Court for the County of San Francisco. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:20-mc-80031-YGR Document 4 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3