Duke Partners LLC v. Michael J Wardrop
5:16-cv-00950
C.D. Cal.Jun 20, 2016Background
- Duke Partners filed an unlawful detainer action in Riverside County Superior Court after purchasing property at a foreclosure sale; defendants (the former occupants) allegedly remained in possession after a 3-day notice.
- Complaint asserts only a single state-law unlawful detainer claim.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on an alleged reference to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 in plaintiff's notice.
- Duke Partners moved to remand the case to state court; defendants did not file an opposition.
- The court reviewed the complaint and removal notice and concluded the complaint does not present a federal question and removal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Complaint alleges only state unlawful detainer; no federal question | Removal notice contends plaintiff's notice references the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, creating federal-question jurisdiction | No federal-question jurisdiction; unlawful detainer claim is purely state law and cannot be removed on that basis |
| Whether a federal defense (or anticipated federal issue) permits removal | Remand because complaint does not present a federal claim | Defendants argue anticipated federal-law defenses (e.g., notice violations) justify removal | Federal defenses cannot form the basis for removal; Caterpillar bars removal based on federal defenses |
| Effect of defendant's failure to oppose remand motion | Motion should be decided on merits but noting procedural default supports grant | Defendants failed to file opposition | Court may deem failure to oppose as consent under local rules; provides additional ground to grant remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes strictly construed against removal)
- Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc., 167 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1999) (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal defenses do not authorize removal)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court may deem pro se litigant's failure to oppose a motion as consent)