Braga v. Braga

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION DOROTHY CATHERINE BRAGA, by and Case No. 21-cv-06331-BLF through the Conservator of her Person and her Estate, Mary Ann Warren, the Public Guardian of the County of Santa Clara, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN Plaintiffs, FORMA PAUPERIS; AND ORDER TO 10 SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD v. NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF 11 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION STEPHEN JOSEPH BRAGA, Defendant.

16 On August 16, 2021, Defendant Stephen Joseph Braga filed a Notice of Removal, purporting to remove this probate action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant also filed an application to proceed in district court in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The case action was reassigned to the undersigned judge on August 27, 2021.

20 Defendant’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

21 Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and on or before September 22, 2021, why this action should not be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the document attached to the Notice of Removal, titled “Notice of Hearing – Guardianship or Conservatorship,” it appears that this probate action involves a petition to quiet title to real property brought by Plaintiff Dorothy C. Braga, by and through the Conservator of her Person and her Estate, Mary Ann Warren, the Public Guardian of the County of Santa Clara. “The probate exception to federal jurisdiction reserves probate matters state court.” Goncalves By & Through Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 2 1237, 1251 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006)). The present action appears to fall squarely within this exception to federal jurisdiction. The Court notes that || Defendant refers to numerous federal statutes in the Notice of Removal. The relevance of those statutes to the probate matter is unclear. Even if one or more of those federal statutes could be || raised as a defense to the probate action, “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

8 If Defendant fails to respond to the Order to Show Cause, or does respond but fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over this state probate action, the action will || be remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: September 8, 2021 an) MV.

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge = 17 Z 18