Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yu v. Carroll

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 11, 2014

BIN YU, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL CARROLL, Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

On September 10, 2014, Defendant Michael Carroll removed this unlawful detainer action from Contra Costa County Superior Court. However, an unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law. Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, it appears that jurisdiction is lacking and the case should be remanded to state court. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Defendant shall file a declaration by September 22, 2014, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on October 2, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. In the declaration, Defendant must address how this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer claim.

Defendant should be mindful that an anticipated federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). "A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, ... even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case." ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint."). Thus, any anticipated defense is not a valid ground for removal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.