Opinion
23-cv-03981-BLF
08-15-2023
CENTRE 11 LLC, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Steven Goldstein (“Goldstein”) removed this unlawful detainer action to federal district court on August 8, 2023, asserting the existence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Not. of Removal, ECF 1. Federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, the complaint raises a single claim of unlawful detainer under California state law and therefore does not present a federal question on its face. See Not. of Removal Ex. A.
Accordingly, Goldstein is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by August 29, 2023, why this unlawful detainer action should not be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.