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

STEVEN EDRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES K. BARR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-07395-JSC 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO 

SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

REMANDED TO STATE COURT

Defendants James K. Barr and Judy A. Barr removed this unlawful detainer action to 

federal court. Defendants invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) The Court ORDERS 

Defendants to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded to state court for lack of 

subject 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). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises 

under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded 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). The defendant seeking removal “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). Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 4
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

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. 

Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). 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).

Here, Defendants cite both federal question and diversity jurisdiction as bases for 

removal. As to federal question jurisdiction, the removed complaint makes only a state-law 

claim for unlawful detainer. It is unclear from the Notice of Removal what federal laws are or 

may be implicated. Further, as noted above, it is the complaint that must allege a cause of action 

based on federal law to confer federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not do so. Any 

actual or anticipated defenses that Defendants plan to raise are not sufficient to establish federal 

jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60.

Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist in this case. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was 

filed in superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less than $10,000 in controversy. 

(See Dkt. No. 1 at 17, 19.) As such, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional 

threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a). In addition, 

only non-resident defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(b); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Once any “local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action 

cannot be removed by that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l 

Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the 

complaint alleges that Defendants reside at the subject property located in Alameda, California, 

and are therefore citizens of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) Indeed, in their notice of removal 

Defendants allege that they are California citizens. (Id. at 8.) As Defendants are “local,”

removal is improper on this basis as well. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE as to why 

this action should not be remanded to state court. Defendants shall respond to this Order in 

writing by January 26, 2017. Failure to respond will result in remand of this case to Alameda

County Superior Court. 

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 4
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

STEVEN EDRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES K. BARR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07395-JSC 

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 January 11, 2017, 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.

James K. Barr

Judy A. Barr

1517 Court Street

Alameda, CA 94501 

Dated: January 11, 2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-07395-JSC Document 3 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 4