1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW WATTERS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01538-DMR (WHO)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 12 10 LADY BENJAMIN CANNON, Defendant. 11

12 13 This case was removed from state court on March 31, 2023, and the plaintiff filed an 14 emergency ex parte application for remand on April 5, 2023. [Dkt. No. 4]. According to the 15 motion, there is a trial set to begin in state court on Monday, April 10, 2023. 16 A defendant may generally remove a case from state court to federal court, but as with all 17 cases, the federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over it. See

(a)-(c). 18 The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See 19 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs.,

, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). I have a duty 20 to ascertain whether I have jurisdiction and must remand a case if I do not. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1447(c). 22 Cannon’s removal notice does not clearly provide a reason for why she believes this case 23 belongs in federal court. Upon review of the notice, motion, and complaint, it is clear that I lack 24 federal jurisdiction because no federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s 25 complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La.,

(1998). And I lack diversity 26 jurisdiction because the defendant states in her removal notice that she is a citizen of California, 27 and the plaintiff confirms in his motion he is also a citizen of California. See NewGen, LLC v. 1 show that diversity jurisdiction exists). Indeed, I previously adopted the Report and 2 || Recommendation of the Honorable Judge Tse remanding this identical case to state court for lack 3 of jurisdiction. See Watters v. Cannon, No. 3:22-cv-02476-WHO, Dkt. Nos. 10, 13. 4 Therefore, these state law claims belong in state court and I lack subject matter jurisdiction 5 to hear this case. The motion to remand is GRANTED and I ORDER that case be REMANDED 6 || to the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. I caution the defendant that she 7 may not remove this case for a third time unless she can point to material changes in the 8 || underlying circumstances, meaning that the parties are no longer citizens of the same state or that 9 the plaintiff has asserted claims that present federal questions. 10 Because I do not have jurisdiction over this case, the pending Motion to Appoint Guardian 11 ad Litem, Dkt. No. 5, is DENIED. The Motion to Consolidate Cases, Dkt. No. 12, is DENIED. 12 || Finally, having considered the defendant’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as 5 13 well as the complaint, Dkt. No. 2, the application is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: April 7, 2023 16 .

8 - Orrick” nited States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28