Arnel Management Company v. McClifton Magee, 8:17-cv-01917

Plaintiff Arnel Management Co. sued McClifton Magee in California Superior Court in an unlawful detainer action.
Defendant Magee filed a Notice of Removal to federal court asserting federal jurisdiction (citing Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and constitutional/federal defenses).
The federal court reviewed the removal papers and state-court record sua sponte to assess subject-matter jurisdiction.
The complaint asserted only state-law unlawful detainer claims and did not plead any federal question or federal right that the state court would refuse to enforce.
The court found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction, no valid § 1443 civil-rights removal showing, and no diversity jurisdiction or sufficient amount-in-controversy.
The court remanded the case to the Orange County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331	Complaint raises only state-law claims (no federal question)	Federal defenses or anticipated federal issues (including PTFA) create federal jurisdiction	Held: No — federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's complaint, not defendant's defenses; PTFA inapplicable and expired
Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is proper	State court will enforce federal civil rights; removal unnecessary	Removal available because defendant's federal civil-rights claims will be denied in state court	Held: No — defendant failed to show state courts would deny enforcement or that statutory criteria are met
Whether bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 applies	N/A (plaintiff's claim not based on Title 11)	Removal asserted § 1334 jurisdiction	Held: No — underlying unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332	Complaint does not allege > $75,000; plaintiff and defendant are California citizens	Defendant contends amount-in-controversy satisfied and diversity exists	Held: No — parties not completely diverse and amount-in-controversy not plausibly met; case not removable on diversity grounds

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and strictly construed)
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (suit begun in state court remains there absent federal removal statute)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint controls amount-in-controversy showing for removal)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (removing defendant bears burden to show jurisdiction)
ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health and Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (affirmative federal defense does not render state claim removable)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; court must remand if lacking)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under § 1443 demand specific showing)
Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377 (conclusory statements insufficient for § 1443 removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (§ 1443(2) limited to federal officers and similar actors)