478 F.Supp.3d 84
D. Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiff Forty Six Hundred LLC filed a summary eviction action against Cadence Education, LLC (d/b/a Next Generation Children’s Center) in Massachusetts state court.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing (1) summary eviction proceedings fall outside federal removal jurisdiction and (2) abstention principles counsel remand even if jurisdiction exists.
- The court rejected the categorical argument that summary eviction actions are beyond federal diversity jurisdiction, noting federal courts commonly adjudicate state-law property disputes and that Massachusetts summary process has many plenary features.
- The court nevertheless applied abstention (Colorado River-style/comity concerns), concluding state courts and the Legislature’s expedited eviction scheme—particularly during COVID-19—should be given priority.
- The court remanded the case to state court but denied Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees because Defendant’s removal was objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have removal jurisdiction over state summary eviction proceedings | Summary eviction falls outside federal jurisdiction; not appropriate for federal court | Diversity jurisdiction applies; federal courts routinely decide state-law property disputes | Court: Jurisdiction exists; summary process does not categorically preclude removal |
| Whether abstention requires remand despite jurisdiction | Abstention appropriate to preserve the state’s comprehensive, expedited eviction scheme and comity, especially during COVID-19 | Federal court should exercise its jurisdiction | Court: Abstains to preserve state scheme, remands case for state adjudication |
| Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs for the remand motion | Plaintiff seeks fees and costs incurred in moving to remand | Removal was objectively reasonable; no basis for fees | Court: Denies fees; each party bears its own costs |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Sweeney, 136 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 1998) (federal court enforcement of state property law is routine)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (abstention principles and factors for federal/state parallel proceedings)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1996) (federal courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction conferred by Congress)
- Safeway, Inc. v. Sugarloaf P’ship, LLC, 423 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D. Md. 2006) (state expedited procedures do not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction)
- MCC Mortg. LP v. Office Depot, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 939 (D. Minn. 2010) (removal proper where summary proceedings mirror plenary civil actions)
- Glen 6 Assocs., Inc. v. Dedaj, 770 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (declined jurisdiction to avoid undermining state eviction scheme)