Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Hans Tadeja, 5:17-cv-01038

Plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court (San Bernardino County) against defendant Hans Tadeja.
Defendant removed the unlawful detainer action to federal district court asserting federal jurisdiction.
The Notice of Removal and state-court pleadings were reviewed by the district court.
Defendant relied on asserted federal defenses and cited federal statutes (including bankruptcy jurisdiction and civil-rights removal provisions) as bases for removal.
The complaint alleges a limited civil unlawful detainer claim governed by California law, with damages not exceeding state small-claims/limited-action limits; defendant is a California citizen.
The district court sua sponte concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered remand to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331	Complaint states only state-law unlawful detainer claims	Federal defenses and federal issues implicated by defenses create federal-question jurisdiction	Denied — federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's claim, not anticipated defenses; removal improper on this basis
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal)	State court can adjudicate civil rights; no contention plaintiff denied federal civil-rights enforcement	Defendant claims state forum will deny enforcement of federal civil rights or that §1443 applies	Denied — defendant failed to identify a state law or practice that would prevent enforcement; §1443 requirements unmet
Bankruptcy (28 U.S.C. § 1334) as a basis for federal jurisdiction	Underlying action is an unlawful detainer; plaintiff did not plead bankruptcy matters	Defendant asserted §1334 could confer jurisdiction	Denied — underlying case does not arise under Title 11; §1334 does not apply
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 / amount-in-controversy	Complaint alleges no >$75,000; plaintiff and defendant are not completely diverse	Defendant alleges amount in controversy and diversity exist	Denied — complete diversity not shown; amount-in-controversy not plausibly met; defendant is California citizen so §1441(b)(2) bar applies

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal-removal statutes strictly construed; removal requires federal original jurisdiction)
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (state suits remain in state court absent congressional removal authority)
ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health & Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal-question jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s complaint, not defenses)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (federal affirmative defense does not render state claim removable)
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense cannot create removal jurisdiction)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under §1443 and need to identify state action denying federal rights)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing defendant; jurisdictional defects compel remand)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint controls; burden and standards for amount-in-controversy allegations in removal)