Baron Farwell v. Don Gonzalez, 2:15-cv-00827

Plaintiff Baron Farwell filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles Superior Court; defendants removed the case to federal court.
The district court reviewed the notice of removal and state-court pleadings sua sponte to assess subject-matter jurisdiction.
The state complaint pleaded only state-law unlawful detainer claims and alleged damages within limited civil action bounds (under $25,000).
Defendants argued federal jurisdiction based on asserted federal-law affirmative defenses and removal papers, but no federal-question claim appears on the face of the complaint.
The court evaluated both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and found neither satisfied.
The district court ordered remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	Complaint raises only state unlawful detainer claims	Federal defenses or raised federal issues in removal create federal-question jurisdiction	No; federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses; remand required
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	Complaint seeks limited civil damages (unlawful detainer)	Amount in controversy meets $75,000 threshold	No; complaint does not allege >$75,000 and underlying action is limited (≤ $25,000)
Whether removal statutes are strictly construed against removal	N/A	Removal proper if statutory requirements met	Court applied strict construction against removal and required removing party to prove jurisdiction
Whether district court may raise jurisdiction sua sponte	N/A	Court should adjudicate if jurisdiction exists	Court may and did raise jurisdiction sua sponte and remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (removal proper only when federal courts have original jurisdiction)
Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1918) (state suits remain in state court absent congressional authorization for removal)
Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (removal statutes strictly construed against removal)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
Abrego ABrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing party bears burden to show jurisdiction)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction requires remand)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (subject-matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable and may be raised sua sponte)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health & 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) (federal-law affirmative defenses do not make a state claim removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (case removable only where plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law)