Culver v. Nair
2:21-cv-01196
| W.D. Wash. | Dec 13, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Gary Culver filed an unlawful detainer action in King County Superior Court under RCW 59.12.030 seeking termination of tenancy, eviction, and restitution.
- Defendant Jayakrishnan Nair, proceeding pro se, removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and filed an in forma pauperis (IFP) application.
- Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) concluding the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and recommending remand and denial of the IFP motion as moot.
- Nair objected; the district court reviewed the R&R de novo and addressed (1) whether removal was proper under § 1441 and (2) whether the court could screen the case in connection with the IFP filing.
- The court held federal-question jurisdiction was lacking because this is a state-law unlawful detainer action and federal defenses/counterclaims cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.
- The court held diversity jurisdiction was not established: the amount in controversy is based on damages sought (possession/eviction), not property value, and unnamed Doe tenants prevent a determination of complete diversity. The case was remanded; IFP and pending motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Culver: case is a state-law unlawful detainer; no federal question | Nair: raises federal defenses/counterclaims that he says create federal jurisdiction | Held: No federal-question jurisdiction; federal defenses/counterclaims do not confer § 1331 jurisdiction (Vaden/Holmes) |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (amount in controversy) | Culver: amount in controversy is the damages sought in unlawful detainer (possession/restitution), not property value | Nair: net equity in properties exceeds $1.5M, satisfying amount in controversy | Held: Amount in controversy not shown; unlawful detainer seeks possession/eviction so property value/unrelated claims do not establish § 1332 amount |
| Whether complete diversity exists given Doe defendants | Culver: Doe defendants render the pleadings non-removable because their citizenship is unknown | Nair: Identifies one Doe as an Indian citizen and asserts others include non-WA citizens | Held: Doe defendants prevent establishing complete diversity; Nair’s vague statements insufficient to show complete diversity |
| Whether the court properly screened the case in connection with an IFP filing | Culver: court may remand and deny IFP as moot if no jurisdiction | Nair: argues the magistrate should have only considered IFP, not removal | Held: Court may screen merits under § 1915(e) for non-prisoner IFP applicants (Calhoun); remand appropriate and IFP denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (IFP screening under § 1915(e) applies to non-prisoner civil litigants)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2009) (federal counterclaims/defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2002) (federal jurisdiction not created by counterclaims)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (any doubt about removal should be resolved in favor of remand)
- ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Environmental Quality of Mont., 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (if removal is improper, district court must remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2008) (complete diversity requires every plaintiff be diverse from every defendant)
- Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1979) (Doe defendants generally preclude removal because citizenship cannot be ascertained)
- Goldberg v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 495 F. Supp. 233 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (Doe allegations render a complaint non-removable absent proof they are sham or later dismissed)
- Reyna-Tapia v. United States, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (district court reviews de novo those parts of a magistrate judge’s R&R that are properly objected to)