Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Paed
3:19-cv-08123
N.D. Cal.Feb 25, 2020Background
- Catamount Properties filed an unlawful detainer action in California state court in July 2019 seeking possession and roughly $6,250/month in damages.
- The state court entered a default judgment for Catamount in October 2019.
- Defendant Cecille Q. Paed filed a notice of removal to federal court in December 2019.
- Catamount moved to remand; Paed did not file an opposition.
- The district court vacated the hearing, found remand appropriate, and ordered the case returned to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Catamount) | Defendant's Argument (Paed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Removal was untimely (30‑day rule) | Removal was filed in December (after judgment) | Court noted removal likely untimely but did not need to decide; remand granted on other grounds |
| Removal after state‑court judgment | Removal improper because action was no longer pending post‑judgment | Removal still permissible | Court observed precedent generally bars removal after final state judgment and found this problematic for removal here |
| Diversity jurisdiction (amount) | Amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 | Asserted diversity basis (implied) | Amount in controversy not shown (monthly rent ≈ $6,250); diversity fails |
| Diversity jurisdiction (forum defendant rule) | N/A | Claimed diversity despite being California citizen | Defendant appears to be California citizen; forum‑defendant bar precludes removal on diversity grounds |
| Federal‑question jurisdiction | Case involves only state unlawful detainer claim | Removal justified by federal defenses or potential federal counterclaims | No federal question on the face of the complaint; federal defenses/counterclaims cannot confer removability |
Key Cases Cited
- Ristuccia v. Adams, 406 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1969) (removal requires a pending state‑court action)
- Oviedo v. Hallbauer, 655 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2011) (removal not authorized after final judgment and time for direct review has run)
- Ohio v. Doe, 433 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2006) (when only enforcement of a judgment remains, removal is improper)
- Four Keys Leasing & Maint. Corp. v. Simithis, 849 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1988) (allowing removal of a final judgment would pervert the removal process)
- Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1986) (federal‑question jurisdiction is governed by the well‑pleaded complaint rule)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal question must appear on the face of the complaint)
- Balcorta v. Twentieth Century‑Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (a federal defense does not create federal‑question jurisdiction)
- Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1985) (a defendant cannot create removability by pleading a federal counterclaim)