Canyon Housing Partners, LLC v. Ebonee Small
5:19-cv-00029
C.D. Cal.Jan 10, 2019Background
- Defendant removed an unlawful detainer action from California Superior Court to federal district court.
- The court raised lack of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
- Plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims; no federal causes of action are pleaded.
- Defendant contends federal jurisdiction exists based on asserted federal-law affirmative defenses (federal question) and/or diversity/amount-in-controversy.
- The complaint does not allege damages over $75,000 and the underlying unlawful detainer is a limited civil action (under $25,000).
- The court concluded neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction exists and ordered remand to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Complaint pleads only state unlawful detainer claims | Federal issues arise from defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses | No — federal-question jurisdiction absent because plaintiff’s complaint does not arise under federal law |
| Whether defendant’s federal-law affirmative defenses support removal | N/A (plaintiff relies on complaint) | Federal defenses make case removable | No — federal defense cannot create federal-question jurisdiction for removal |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (complete diversity) | Plaintiffs and defendants are not all diverse | Defendant asserts diversity of parties | No — complete diversity not established; at least one party shares state citizenship |
| Whether amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000 | Complaint alleges limited civil amount (under $25,000) | Defendant argues amount meets jurisdictional threshold | No — complaint does not allege > $75,000 and defendant failed to plausibly show otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Protection v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal statutes strictly construed)
- Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (suit commenced in state court remains there absent statutory removal)
- Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (removal statutes construed narrowly)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing party to establish jurisdiction)
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (removing defendant bears burden of proving jurisdiction)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
- Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (affirmative federal defense does not render state action removable)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense cannot create federal jurisdiction)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction non-waivable; remand required if lacking)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)