2:19-cv-00872
C.D. Cal.Feb 8, 2019Background
- Plaintiff 3J1M LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Defendant Micaela Johnston removed the action to federal court.
- The District Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state court record sua sponte.
- The Complaint asserted only state-law unlawful detainer claims; no federal question appeared on the face.
- Defendant relied on anticipated federal defenses, asserted removal under § 1443 and invoked § 1334 and diversity; the court found none of these grounds satisfied.
- The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 | Complaint raises only state-law claims; no federal question | Federal issues arise from defendant's affirmative defenses | No federal-question jurisdiction; federal defenses cannot create removal jurisdiction |
| Whether federal defenses permit removal | State claim controls; case belongs in state court | Federal-law affirmative defenses warrant removal | Rejected; defenses do not make case removable (defense-based jurisdiction impermissible) |
| Removal under § 1443 (civil rights removal) | State courts will enforce defendant's civil rights; no statutory showing | Defendant claims denial of equal civil rights justifies removal | § 1443 requirements not met; defendant failed to identify statutory/constitutional source or show state-court refusal to enforce rights |
| Diversity jurisdiction / amount in controversy | Action is a limited unlawful detainer (≤ $25,000); plaintiff and defendant not completely diverse | Removal claimed under diversity/amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Diversity jurisdiction lacking: parties not fully diverse and amount in controversy not plausibly met |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and strictly construed)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense does not authorize removal)
- ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health and Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claim, not anticipated defenses)
- Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (affirmative federal defense cannot render state action removable)
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under § 1443 explained)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (§ 1443(2) limited to federal officers and certain state officers)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (burden/standard for amount-in-controversy in removal notices)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; district court must remand if lacking)