1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RELIANT - WOODS GROVE, L.P., Case No. 3:20-cv-08087-WHO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

9 v. GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

10 KATLYN-NICOLE OF THE JOHNSON- FAMILY, Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 11 Defendant.

12 13 The plaintiff, Reliant - Woods Grove, LP (“Reliant”), instituted an unlawful detainer action 14 in California state court against the defendant, Katlyn Johnson. See Notice of Removal (“Notice”) 15 [Dkt. No. 1] at 14. Johnson removed the case to this court on November 13, 2020, and moved for 16 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 17 GRANTED. It is apparent, however, that I lack subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Johnson 18 is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of 19 subject matter jurisdiction. 20 A defendant may generally remove a case from state court to federal court; but, as with all 21 cases, the federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)–(c). 22 The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 23 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). I have a duty 24 to ascertain whether I have jurisdiction and must remand a case sua sponte if I do not. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 26 Johnson’s notice of removal claims dozens of bases for federal jurisdiction but none seems 27 to have merit. See Notice at ECF 2–4. First, I lack diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 1 both California residents. See, e.g., id. at ECF 1 (plaintiffs address), 18 (defendant’s state of 2 || incorporation). Separately, I also lack removal jurisdiction based on diversity because Johnson, 3 by all indications, is a California citizen, so she cannot remove a case filed in California court. 28 4 US.C. § 1441(b)(2). 5 The other potential basis of jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 6 1331. I lack federal question jurisdiction because the complaint alleges only a state-law unlawful 7 detainer action. See Notice at ECF 12-25. It is well-established that state-law unlawful detainer 8 || claims do not “arise under” federal law. See, e.g., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Lopez, No. C 11- 9 00451 WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011). Johnson appears to argue that 10 she has counterclaims against Reliant under numerous federal statutes. See Notice at ECF 3-5. 11 But an action “‘arises under’ federal law only if the federal question appears on the face of the 12 || plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint.” Takeda v. Nw. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821 (9th Cir. 5 13 1985). “[R]emovability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a 14 || federal question.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). Reliant’s complaint does not plead any 3 15 || federal question.! 16 Within 14 days, Johnson is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 5 17 remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Johnson does not respond within S 18 || that period, I will remand the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 30, 2020 _M.Qe 22 . William H. Orrick 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 ' There is also no colorable basis to assert admiralty jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer 2g || action. Johnson’s other purported jurisdictional bases are causes of action, not statutes that create subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF 2-4.