D and C Investment Properties, L.P. v. Dayjanay Alize Thomas
5:18-cv-00100
C.D. Cal.Jan 19, 2018Background
- Plaintiff D and C Investment Properties, L.P. filed an unlawful detainer action in San Bernardino County Superior Court against Dayjanay Alize Thomas and others.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction (federal question, § 1443 civil-rights removal, bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334, and/or diversity).
- The district court reviewed the removal notice and state-court record sua sponte to determine subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Complaint alleges only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not invoke federal law or allege damages exceeding the diversity threshold.
- Defendants relied on anticipated federal defenses and asserted various statutory bases for removal, but did not plead facts establishing removal jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the action to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of federal-question jurisdiction | Complaint asserts only state unlawful detainer claims | Federal defenses/affirmative defenses raise federal issues giving federal-question jurisdiction | No — federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's claim; defenses do not create jurisdiction; remand granted |
| Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal) | State courts can adjudicate civil-rights claims; no denial alleged | Removal appropriate because federal civil-rights issues purportedly implicated | No — defendants failed to identify statutory federal right and show state courts would deny enforcement |
| Bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 | Underlying dispute arises out of debtor/creditor matters (argued) | Case related to bankruptcy/Title 11 so federal court has jurisdiction | No — underlying unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11; § 1334 not satisfied |
| Diversity jurisdiction / amount in controversy | Claim for possession is limited civil action under California law | Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; parties are diverse | No — complaint alleges limited civil action (≤ $25,000), removing defendant is CA citizen, diversity requirements not met; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and strictly construed)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
- Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (a federal-law affirmative defense does not render a state claim removable)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense cannot alone create federal jurisdiction)
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under § 1443 and the need to show state-court denial of federal rights)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (scope of § 1443(2) removal limited to certain federal or state officers)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint and removing party’s allegations govern amount-in-controversy showing)