Avila La Paz Center LLC v. Anthony J. Jeremiah, 2:19-cv-08834

Plaintiff Avila La Paz Center LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Defendants (including Anthony J. Jeremiah) removed the case to federal court asserting various grounds for federal jurisdiction (federal defenses, §1443 civil-rights removal, 28 U.S.C. §1334 bankruptcy jurisdiction, and/or diversity).
The District Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court records and found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint asserts only state-law claims.
The court held that anticipated federal defenses do not create federal-question removal jurisdiction and that defendants failed to establish the requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443.
The court found §1334 inapplicable (the matter does not arise under Title 11) and concluded diversity jurisdiction/amount-in-controversy requirements were not met; removal was also barred because a removing defendant is a California citizen and the underlying action is a limited civil action not exceeding $25,000.
The court sua sponte remanded the action to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question removal (28 U.S.C. §1331)	Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer; no federal question	Federal-law defenses/affirmative defenses create federal jurisdiction	Denied — federal defenses do not convert state claim into federal-question jurisdiction; remand required
Removal based on federal defenses	State claims control jurisdiction; defenses irrelevant to removal	Anticipated federal defenses justify removal	Denied — existence of federal defense is insufficient to support removal
Removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443 (civil-rights removal)	State court will enforce rights; §1443 not triggered	Defendants claim civil-rights enforcement issues warrant §1443 removal	Denied — defendants failed to identify specific statutory/constitutional command the state court would refuse to enforce; conclusory assertions insufficient
Diversity / amount in controversy / forum-defendant rule (28 U.S.C. §1332, §1441(b)(2))	Defendants contend diversity or amount-in-controversy supports removal	Defendants asserted diversity/amount or bankruptcy jurisdiction	Denied — not all parties are diverse; amount-in-controversy not plausibly >$75,000; action is limited (≤$25,000) and removing defendant is a California citizen, precluding removal; §1334 not implicated

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal is statutory and statutes are strictly construed)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (plaintiff’s complaint determines federal-question jurisdiction; standard for amount-in-controversy allegations in removal)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, not defenses)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes construed narrowly; defendant bears burden)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for removal under §1443 and need for factual support)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (§1443(2) limited to federal officers and certain state officers refusing to enforce discriminatory state laws)