District of Columbia v. 2626 Naylor Road, S.E.
763 F. Supp. 2d 5
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff District of Columbia seeks to condemn property within Skyland Shopping Center under the Skyline Eminent Domain Act and related DC statutes to redevelop the area.
- The condemned property includes land with Autozone Stores, Inc. as a leasehold tenant; the District initiated condemnation on October 22, 2010 in Superior Court.
- The NCRC Eminent Domain framework (Skyline Act) was later superseded by the NCRC Reorganization Act, transferring powers to the Mayor to exercise eminent domain for municipal uses.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court arguing federal question and diversity jurisdiction; plaintiff moved to remand arguing lack of federal jurisdiction.
- The Court analyzes whether federal question or diversity jurisdiction exists and concludes neither provides a basis for removal.
- The Court grants the motion to remand, holding the action is grounded in District law and the Mayor is not the real party in interest for diversity purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do federal question conditions exist for removal? | District argues action arises under District law, not federal law. | Takings Clause compliance creates a federal question; public-use defense implicates federal law. | No federal question jurisdiction; action arises under District law. |
| Is there diversity jurisdiction remaining for removal? | District is the real party in interest; no complete diversity with a District defendant. | Mayor is the real party in interest and diverse from defendants. | No diversity jurisdiction; District is real party in interest, so no removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (Supreme Court, 1941) (removal must be narrowly construed; federal defenses cannot support removal)
- Hood v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 639 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009) (resolve doubts in favor of remand; keep removal jurisdiction limited)
- Kormendi/Gardner Partners v. Surplus Acquisition Venture, LLC, 606 F.Supp.2d 114 (D.D.C. 2009) (federal question jurisdiction not created by federal defenses)
- Colorado ex rel. Land Acquisition Comm'n v. American Mach. & Foundry Co., 143 F.Supp.703 (D. Colo. 1956) (state action not federal question when based on state statute)
- Cordeco Dev. Corp. v. Puerto Rico, 534 F.Supp.612 (D.P.R. 1982) (real party in interest for diversity depends on substantive rights)
- De Long Corp. v. Oregon State Highway Comm'n, 233 F.Supp.7 (D. Or. 1964) (state condemnation power and real party in interest analysis)
- Pressnell v. United States, 328 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1964) (title and party in interest considerations for condemnation)
- Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980) (trustee/real party in interest framework for determining who sues)
- City of Cleveland v. Corley, 398 F.2d 41 (6th Cir. 1968) (federal question requirement not met by constitutional defenses)
- California ex rel. Land Acquisition Comm'n v. American Mach. & Foundry Co., 143 F.Supp.703 (D. Colo. 1956) (condemnation real party in interest considerations)