From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thames v. GC Serv. Ltd. P'ship

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 12, 2011
No. C-11-3730 MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)

Opinion

No. C-11-3730 MMC

08-12-2011

JAMES THAMES, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

Before the Court is the Notice of Removal, filed July 29, 2011 by defendant GC Services Limited Partnership ("GC Services"), by which GC Services has removed from the Superior Court a complaint filed in the San Francisco Small Claims Division by plaintiff James Thames, who proceeds pro se.

According to GC Services, the complaint "purports to allege a federal cause of action against [GC Services] for purported violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act" ("FDCPA"). (See Notice of Removal ¶ 4.) The complaint, however, includes no express reference to the FDCPA nor any other federal statute. Nor does it appear from plaintiff's description of his claim that any such reference reasonably can be implied from the face of the complaint. Consequently, it would appear GC Services has not, and cannot, meet its burden to establish that plaintiff's complaint presents a federal question. See Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (holding federal question jurisdiction exists "only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal] laws or [the] Constitution"); O'Halloran v. University of Washington, 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding "party seeking removal has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction").

In the complaint, plaintiff describes his claim as follows: "I made proffer to resolve matter of law equitable estoppel remedy requested for injunctive relief as a matter of good cause or faith whichever applicable." (See Compl. ¶ 3.)

Accordingly, GC Services is hereby DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and not later than August 22, 2011, why the instant complaint should not be remanded, for the reason the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Thames v. GC Serv. Ltd. P'ship

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 12, 2011
No. C-11-3730 MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Thames v. GC Serv. Ltd. P'ship

Case Details

Full title:JAMES THAMES, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 12, 2011

Citations

No. C-11-3730 MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)