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

ASHWANI BHAKHRI,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY RUIZ,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00740-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, AND ORDER TO 

DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

REMANDED TO STATE COURT

Defendant Ray Ruiz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, removed this unlawful 

detainer action to federal court. Defendant invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b). As an initial matter, Mr. Ruiz has filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The Court, however, ORDERS Mr. Ruiz to 

show cause as to why this case should not be remanded to the Alameda County Superior 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 

Case 3:17-cv-00740-WHO Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 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

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 

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, Mr. Ruiz bases removal on federal question jurisdiction. However, the removed 

complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only 

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987); see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Terrenal, 

No. 12–5540, 2013 WL 124355, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (finding “no basis for asserting 

federal claim jurisdiction” where “[t]he complaint asserts only one state law claim for unlawful 

detainer”).

Nor does it appear that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold of 

$75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a); see also Dkt. No. 1 at 6

(stating that the amount at issue is less than $25,000). Further, 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 civil cover sheet alleges that Mr. Ruiz resides

in Alameda County and is therefore a citizen of California. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) As Mr. Ruiz is a

“local” defendant, removal is improper on this basis as well. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the Mr. Ruiz to SHOW CAUSE as to why 

this action should not be remanded to state court. Mr. Ruiz shall respond to this Order in writing 

by March 10, 2017. Failure to respond may result in remand of this case to Alameda County 

Superior Court.

Case 3:17-cv-00740-WHO Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00740-WHO Document 5 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 3