United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2021

Menhardt v. Tracy

Menhardt v. Tracy
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 20, 2021
Menhardt v. Tracy

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEATRIX MENHARDT, Case No. 20-cv-08670-NC

Plaintiff, ORDER IN RESPONSE TO

JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFS v. AND REMANDING TO STATE

COURT

MELISSA TRACY, and MEREK TEJA,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 11

Defendants.

On December 24, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff Menhardt and Defendants Tracy and Teja to show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 9. In their brief, Tracy and Teja point to case law stating that “a claim arises under federal law if federal law provides a necessary element of the plaintiff’s claim for relief.” Jones v. R.R. Donnelley Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 376 (2004) (citing to Christianson v. Colt Indust. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988)); see ECF 10 at 2. However, a necessary element is not just any element of a federal claim; a necessary element is only established when “the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question.” Christianson, 486 U.S. at 808.

In her Response, Menhardt clarifies that a “substantial” federal question is one that questions a federal statute’s validity or interpretation or challenges a federal agency or 1 F.3d 895, 905 (9th Cir. 2020); ECF 11 at 3-4. A “fact-bound and situation-specific” issue is not substantial. City of Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905. Menhardt asserts that the only federal issue here, if any, is whether her property is covered by the federal CARES Act. See ECF at4. Tracy and Teja assert that the federal issue is whether Menhardt obtained a mortgage deferment under the federal CARES Act. See ECF 10 at 2. Both questions are fact-bound and situation-specific and are therefore not substantial federal questions. See City of Oakland, 969 F.3d at 905. Thus, the Court FINDS that there is no federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Santa Cruz County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: January 20, 2021 h-_———— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS = 13 United States Magistrate Judge o 17

1g

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.