Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Leonard McCrae, 2:17-cv-07652

Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Leonard McCrae and Does 1–10, seeking possession of real property and monetary damages.
Plaintiff acquired the property following a trustee’s sale after foreclosure; defendants are alleged holdover occupants.
Defendant McCrae removed the state unlawful detainer action to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction.
McCrae simultaneously filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs (IFP).
The district court reviewed the notice of removal and complaint and considered whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal is proper under federal-question jurisdiction	Complaint alleges only an unlawful detainer (state law)	Removal is proper because defendant’s defenses raise federal fair housing/ civil‑rights issues	No. Complaint presents no federal question; defenses invoking federal law do not create removal jurisdiction; case remanded to state court
Whether to grant in forma pauperis (IFP) status	N/A (plaintiff did not seek IFP)	Defendant seeks to proceed without prepaying fees	Denied as moot because case is remanded

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts have limited subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (court must ensure it has subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may summarily remand for obvious jurisdictional defects)
Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant bears burden to prove federal jurisdiction on removal)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal jurisdiction)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (a federal defense does not create federal‑question jurisdiction)