DP Alura WC TIC 1, LLC v. Jarrod Tennant, 2:22-cv-06092

Plaintiff DP Alura WC TIC 1, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in California state court against Jarrod Tennant.
Tennant removed the action to federal court; the district court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court filings.
Tennant argued federal jurisdiction based on asserted federal defenses, possible §1443 civil-rights removal, bankruptcy jurisdiction (§1334), and diversity/amount-in-controversy.
The complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not plead a federal cause of action or damages over $75,000.
The court found no federal-question basis (federal defenses and counterclaims do not create removal jurisdiction), §1443 requirements were not met, bankruptcy jurisdiction did not apply, diversity/amount-in-controversy failed, and the removing party was not a named defendant.
The district court sua sponte REMANDED the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	State-law unlawful detainer only; stays in state court	Federal defenses (and possible counterclaims) raise federal issues	No federal-question jurisdiction; federal defenses/counterclaims do not create removal jurisdiction
Whether anticipated federal defenses permit removal	N/A	Federal-law affirmative defenses justify removal	Rejected — federal defenses alone cannot support removal
Whether removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal)	State courts will enforce rights; removal unnecessary	Defendant claims denial of equal civil rights	Not satisfied — defendant failed to show state courts would deny enforcement or that §1443(2) applies
Whether bankruptcy jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1334) applies	Matter is state-law unlawful detainer	Removal proper under §1334	Not applicable — case does not arise under Title 11
Whether diversity jurisdiction / amount-in-controversy exists	Complaint is limited; no >$75,000 alleged	Amount in controversy and complete diversity met	Lacking — parties not completely diverse and amount not plausibly >$75,000; unlawful detainer limited under state law
Whether procedural removal requirements are met (removing party status)	N/A	Removal by party eligible to remove	Not met — removing party was not a named defendant in the complaint

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal requires that plaintiff’s claim arise under federal law)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (1918) (suit filed in state court remains there unless Congress provides removal)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (party seeking removal bears burden; removal statutes construed narrowly)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant must establish federal jurisdiction)
ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health & Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirmative federal defenses do not render state claims removable)
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defense alone cannot support removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) (scope of §1443 removal; limited to federal officers and specific civil-rights denials)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (§1443 requires showing of denial of enforcement of federal civil rights by state courts)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (plaintiff’s complaint controls amount-in-controversy inquiry for removal)
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002) (whether a case arises under federal law does not turn on counterclaims)