Azam v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
690 F. App'x 484
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nazie Azam removed an unlawful detainer (eviction) action from state court and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop her eviction; the bankruptcy court denied the TRO and she was evicted over three years ago.
- Azam also filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case raising claims related to the eviction and other state-law matters.
- The bankruptcy court remanded the unlawful detainer action back to state court and abstained from hearing the adversary proceeding, lifting the automatic stay as appropriate.
- Azam appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP); the BAP dismissed her appeal as to the TRO, and affirmed remand and abstention decisions.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed the BAP decision and affirmed: (1) the TRO appeal was moot, (2) remand of the unlawful detainer was proper (no valid §1443 removal), and (3) abstention from the adversary proceeding was within discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of TRO denial | Azam argued denial was reversible and she should obtain relief | Eviction already occurred; reversal would provide no effective relief | Appeal dismissed as moot — eviction cannot be undone |
| Remand of unlawful detainer (removal under 28 U.S.C. §1443) | Azam argued removal was proper, citing state laws to support federal protection claims | Defendant and courts: removal duplicative of prior failed removal; petition failed to meet §1443 requirements | Remand affirmed — §1443 not satisfied and issue precluded by prior appeal |
| Abstention from adversary proceeding | Azam wanted bankruptcy court to decide the adversary claims | Bankruptcy court argued claims were remote, predominately state-law, related state proceedings existed, and forum shopping likely | Abstention affirmed — factors favored abstention and lifting stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca-Castaic, LLC, 823 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2016) (mootness test for appeals)
- Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002) (past acts that cannot be undone render injunction appeals moot)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctions prevent future violations)
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for removal under §1443)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (§1443 removal doctrine)
- Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966) (§1443 removal doctrine)
- California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1970) (interpretation of §1443 removal requirements)
- In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors guiding bankruptcy abstention)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Azam, [citation="582 F. App'x 710"] (9th Cir. 2014) (prior disposition affirming remand of same removal)