7980 Sunset Associates v. Nunzio Donato Ciaraulo
2:25-cv-04420
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 18, 2025Background
- Pro se defendant Nunzio Donato Ciaraulo removed an unlawful detainer action brought by 7980 Sunset Associates from California state court to federal court.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court and sought attorneys' fees and costs.
- The underlying complaint concerns only an unlawful detainer (eviction) claim, with no federal claims asserted by Plaintiff.
- Defendant argued federal question jurisdiction was implicated due to potential counterclaims, such as alleged ADA violations, arising from Plaintiff’s conduct.
- The court considered whether the elements necessary for federal subject matter jurisdiction were present, focusing on the complaint’s face.
- The hearing on the motion to remand was vacated because the court ruled in chambers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Question Jurisdiction Exists | Complaint has only state law | Federal issue arises from potential counterclaim/defense | No jurisdiction—only complaint’s claims matter |
| Proper Basis for Removal | Defendant failed to show | State claims implicate federal issues | Defendant failed to meet burden for removal |
| Fees and Costs for Improper Removal | Should be awarded under §1447(c) | Removal had reasonable basis, is pro se | Request denied—Plaintiff didn't establish criteria |
| Effect of Procedural Errors (meet/confer) | N/A | Plaintiff didn't meet and confer pre-motion | Issue moot—court would have remanded sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (importance of federal courts' limited jurisdiction and burden on remover to show it exists)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint, not in defenses or counterclaims)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal jurisdiction determined by plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (explains when state law claims can raise substantial federal issues)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (provides test for when state law claims support federal jurisdiction due to embedded federal issues)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (doubts on right of removal resolved against jurisdiction and removal)