Phillip Campbell v. Milous James Ivory

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the defendant to show cause why a removed unlawful detainer action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the complaint asserted only a state-law unlawful detainer claim, that a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction, and that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the parties were California citizens.

Holdings

1. A case arises under federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action; an actual or anticipated federal defense does not confer federal jurisdiction.
2. Diversity jurisdiction is unavailable where the parties are citizens of the same state.
3. The defendant seeking removal bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper, and a removed case must be remanded if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a state-law unlawful detainer action may be removed to federal court based on a federal defense or the defendant's anticipated federal issues.
2. Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint asserts only a state-law claim.
3. Whether diversity jurisdiction exists when both parties are California citizens.
4. Whether the defendant should be required to show cause why the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

other