Arnel Management Company v. La Tisha Thomas-Roberts, 8:17-cv-01579

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action removed by defendant LaTisha Thomas-Roberts from Orange County Superior Court to federal district court.
The court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court records and raised subject-matter-jurisdiction issues sua sponte.
The Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims; no federal claims are pleaded.
Defendant invoked various bases for federal jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal (federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1443, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and diversity), but provided no supporting factual allegations for federal jurisdiction.
The court found no federal-question jurisdiction, no valid § 1443 federal-rights removal, no bankruptcy (Title 11) basis, and insufficient allegations to establish diversity/amount in controversy.
The court remanded the action to the California Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331	Complaint raises only state-law claims (no federal question)	Federal defenses or affirmative defenses create federal issues	Held: Not removable — federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s complaint; defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal)	No argument that state courts will deny enforcement of federal civil rights	Asserts removal rights under § 1443 based on alleged federal civil-rights protections	Held: Not satisfied — defendant failed to identify state law/constitutional command or factual basis showing denial of enforcement required by § 1443
Bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334	Plaintiff’s action is state-law unlawful detainer	Defendant asserted § 1334 as a ground for removal	Held: Not applicable — underlying action does not arise under Title 11
Diversity jurisdiction and amount in controversy under § 1332	Complaint does not allege > $75,000; plaintiff is California citizen	Defendant did not plausibly allege complete diversity or meet $75,000 requirement	Held: Not met — lack of complete diversity and failure to show amount in controversy; unlawful detainer appears limited in value

Key Cases Cited

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal is statutory and statutes strictly construed)
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (1918) (suit begun in state court remains there absent congressional removal authority)
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (removal statutes construed narrowly)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden to prove jurisdiction)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction is not waivable; remand required if lacking)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claim, not anticipated defenses)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirmative federal-law defense does not render state action removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defenses cannot form basis for removal)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for § 1443(1) removal explained)
Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1966) (conclusory statements insufficient for § 1443 removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (§ 1443(2) removal limited to federal officers or state officers refusing to enforce discriminatory state laws)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (plaintiff’s complaint and removing party’s allegations govern amount-in-controversy showing)