City and County of San Francisco et al v. Kwan

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KAREN PO KWAN,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-11079-JST
ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs City and County of San Francisco and State of California filed this action against
Defendant Karen Po Kwan alleging violations of state housing law and San Francisco health and
housing codes, as well as public nuisance. ECF No. 1 at 15–31. Plaintiffs initially filed the
complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court and Kwan removed it based on federal
question jurisdiction. Id. at 1–4. The Court now ORDERS KWAN TO SHOW CAUSE why this
action should not be remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court for lack of jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction” that “possess only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction
or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). However, it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “In determining federal
question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
Case 4:26-cv-11079-JST Document 12 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1041 (citation modified). “Because federal question jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims, a case
may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . .” City of Oakland v. BP
PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903–04 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified) (emphasis in original). “Therefore,
as the master of the claim, the plaintiff can generally avoid federal question jurisdiction by
exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. (citation modified).
In addition, federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where each plaintiff
is a citizen of a different state than each defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The complaint here alleges claims solely under state and local law—namely, violations of
the California Health and Safety Code; violations of the San Francisco Building, Housing,
Plumbing, and Health Codes; and public nuisance. ECF No. 1 at 24–28. In her notice of removal,
Plaintiff asserted federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that “[t]he underlying state court
action arises directly out of an unconstitutional, multi-agency operational sweep executing a
predatory real estate equity-poaching scheme under color of law, violating Defendant’s Fourth
Amendment right against warrantless seizures and Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due
process.” ECF No. 1 at 2. It is not clear that Kwan can assert these arguments as defenses to
Plaintiff’s claims. Even if she could, however, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the
basis of a federal defense.” See City of Oakland, 969 F.3d at 903–04 (emphasis in original).
Moreover, the complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and Kwan are all citizens of California, see ECF
No. 1 at 16–17, indicating that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, by October 30, 2026, Kwan is ordered to show cause in writing as to why
this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-11079-JST Document 12 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2