Eisenman Family Trust v. Oudree Ellis Sanders
8:19-cv-02079
C.D. Cal.Nov 4, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Eisenman Family Trust, et al.) filed an unlawful detainer action in Orange County Superior Court.
- Defendant Oudree Ellis removed the action to federal court claiming federal jurisdiction.
- Ellis invoked federal jurisdiction (including an asserted basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1334) and suggested federal-rights removal principles.
- The district court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte and applied the principle that removal is a statutory right strictly construed against removal.
- The Court found no federal-question jurisdiction (unlawful detainer is governed by California law, not Title 11) and no valid civil-rights removal under § 1443.
- The Court also found diversity jurisdiction and amount-in-controversy lacking (limited civil action <$25,000; defendant is a California citizen), and remanded to state court on Nov. 4, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | State unlawful detainer; no federal issue | Federal jurisdiction exists (cites § 1334) | No federal-question jurisdiction; action arises under state law, not Title 11 |
| Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal) | State court will enforce federal rights; no basis for § 1443 removal | § 1443 permits removal to protect civil rights | § 1443 not satisfied; defendant failed to identify a state law that commands courts to ignore federal rights or show state-court hostility; conclusory claims insufficient |
| Diversity jurisdiction / Amount in controversy | Case is state limited civil action; amount < $75,000 | Amount-in-controversy met to permit removal | Diversity lacking; amount not plausibly over $75,000; case is limited civil action under $25,000 |
| Forum-defendant rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)) | N/A | Removal proper despite defendant’s state citizenship | Forum-defendant rule bars removal because defendant is a California citizen |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (removal is statutory; state suit remains unless Congress provides removal).
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (state-court suits remain unless Congress authorizes removal).
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (removal statutes strictly construed against removal).
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction).
- Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249 (scope of removal under § 1441 and requirement that federal courts have original jurisdiction).
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (standard for § 1443(1) civil-rights removal requires showing state law or practice denies rights).
- Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377 (conclusory statements insufficient to support § 1443 removal).
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (§ 1443(2) limited to federal officers or state officers refusing to enforce discriminatory laws).