1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CENTRE 11 LLC, Case No. 23-cv-03981-BLF 9 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

10 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

1] STEVEN GOLDSTEIN, MATTER JURISDICTION 12 Defendant.

14 Defendant Steven Goldstein (“Goldstein”) removed this unlawful detainer action to federal 2 15 || district court on August 8, 2023, asserting the existence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 16 || U.S.C. § 1331. See Not. of Removal, ECF 1. Federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil 2 17 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Z 18 || “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 19 || complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 20 || presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 21 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, the complaint raises a single claim of unlawful detainer under 22 || California state law and therefore does not present a federal question on its face. See Not. of 23 || Removal Ex. A. 24 Accordingly, Goldstein is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by August 25 29, 2023, why this unlawful detainer action should not be remanded to the Santa Clara County 26 || Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 27 || Dated: August 15, 2023 _fopinccnan

B LABSON FREEMAN

28 United States District Judge