Arin Capital and Investment Corp. v. Shomari Colver, 2:15-cv-01734

Plaintiff Arin Capital & Investment Corp. filed a state-court unlawful detainer action seeking possession, lease termination, costs, and $100/day damages; the complaint’s caption states demand is less than $10,000.
Defendant Shomari Colver (pro se) removed the case to federal court asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1441/1331), and diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332).
Defendant alleged denial of equal protection and claimed the property’s market value exceeds $75,000.
The Court reviewed the removal standards and the presumption against federal jurisdiction, placing the burden on the removing party to establish jurisdiction.
The Court analyzed removal under § 1443 (civil rights removal), federal-question (well-pleaded complaint rule), and diversity (complete diversity and amount in controversy) and found none supported removal.
The Court remanded the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Valid removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443	N/A — plaintiff proceeded in state court	Colver contends he is denied/enforced equal civil rights and so may remove under § 1443	Denied — Colver failed both prongs of the Rachel/Peacock test; no statutory federal racial civil-rights defense or showing state courts would refuse to enforce federal rights
Federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)	Claim is state-law unlawful detainer only	Colver claims constitutional equal protection and other federal issues justify removal	Denied — well-pleaded complaint contains only unlawful detainer (a state law claim); federal defenses or anticipated counterclaims do not create federal-question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)	N/A — plaintiff sued in state court for < $10,000	Colver asserts property value exceeds $75,000 and implies diversity exists	Denied — removing party failed to prove amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; caption alleges demand < $10,000; plus Colver is a California citizen so removal would be barred under § 1441(b)
Whether remand is required for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Plaintiff seeks remand	Defendant opposes federal jurisdiction	Granted — court remanded case to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of federal jurisdiction

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal jurisdiction)
Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant bears burden to prove federal jurisdiction on removal)
Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (supreme court two-part test for § 1443 removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (clarifying § 1443 removal standards)
California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1970) (applying Rachel/Peacock tests)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (removal under § 1443 requirements)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal defense does not permit removal except in limited circumstances)
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (complete diversity requirement)
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (party seeking removal must prove amount in controversy with legal certainty)
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (amount-in-controversy standards on removal)