Eagle Vista Equities, LLC v. Santiago
3:15-cv-04143
N.D. Cal.Sep 15, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Eagle Vista Equities filed an unlawful detainer action in San Mateo County Superior Court.
- Defendant Wilson C. Santiago removed the case to federal court on September 11, 2015.
- The complaint pleads a single state-law unlawful detainer claim and requests damages under the limited civil action cap.
- The magistrate judge concluded removal lacked a proper basis because no federal-question appears on the face of the complaint and diversity appears lacking or insufficient.
- The magistrate judge recommended remand to state court and ordered reassignment to a district judge because the defendant had not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal question exists | Unlawful detainer is a state claim; no federal question on face of complaint | Defendant relied on anticipated federal defenses or asserted federal interest | No federal-question jurisdiction; removal improper |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Plaintiff is a California plaintiff suing in California state court | Defendant asserted diversity jurisdiction (implied) | Diversity jurisdiction lacking or barred by forum-defendant rule |
| Whether amount in controversy meets § 1332 | Complaint seeks damages within limited-action cap (≤ $25,000) | Defendant may point to underlying mortgage value > $75,000 | Amount in controversy not met; unlawful detainer limited by damages pleaded |
| Whether anticipated federal defenses can support removal | Plaintiff: federal defenses do not create federal jurisdiction | Defendant: may anticipate raising federal defenses/counterclaims (e.g., TILA, RESPA) | Anticipated federal defenses or counterclaims do not confer removal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Billingsly v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited, statutory constitutional jurisdiction)
- Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal courts lack power over claims without subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal statutes are construed restrictively)
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction on removing party)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden of proof for removal jurisdiction)
- Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 1998) (federal question must appear on face of complaint for removal)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal question must be presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint)
- Fifty Associates v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1971) (diversity jurisdiction determined from complaint)
- K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction cannot be based on defenses or counterclaims)
- Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (forum-defendant rule bars removal when a defendant is a citizen of the state where action was brought)
- Holmes Group v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002) (federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (same principle on limits of federal jurisdiction)
- ARCO Environmental Remediation, LLC v. Department of Health & Environmental Quality of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (anticipated federal defenses insufficient for removal)
- Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2005) (federal preemption defense does not confer jurisdiction)