Gabriel Cervantes v. Ana Aguilar, 2:16-cv-07986

Plaintiff Gabriel Cervantes filed an unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court against defendant Ana Aguilar (aka Ana Aguilera).
Defendant removed the action to federal court, asserting federal-question, civil-rights removal (28 U.S.C. § 1443), bankruptcy jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1334), and diversity/amount-in-controversy grounds.
The state complaint contained only state-law unlawful detainer claims and alleged damages within the limits of a limited civil action (under $25,000).
The removing defendant is a California citizen; the complaint did not allege damages exceeding $75,000.
The district court reviewed the notice of removal and state-court record and raised lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331	Complaint asserts only state-law claims	Federal defenses or affirmative defenses raise federal question	Denied — federal jurisdiction cannot rest on anticipated federal defenses; plaintiff’s claims control
Removal under § 1443 (civil-rights removal)	State court will enforce plaintiff’s rights (implicit)	Removal available because federal civil-rights are implicated	Denied — defendant failed to show state courts would deny enforcement or that statutory prerequisites are met
Bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334	Not raised by plaintiff	Underlying action arises from bankruptcy or affects estate	Denied — unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11
Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 / amount-in-controversy	Complaint limited; plaintiff seeks less than $75,000	Defendant contends amount-in-controversy met or diversity exists	Denied — defendant a California citizen; complaint does not allege >$75,000 and action is limited civil action

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and must be shown)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (suit begun in state court remains there absent federal removal authority)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (removing party bears burden to prove jurisdiction)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (requirements for § 1441 removal explained)
ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health & Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (affirmative federal defense does not make state action removable)
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense alone cannot support removal)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (§ 1443 removal requires showing state courts would deny enforcement of federal civil rights)
Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377 (conclusory statements insufficient for § 1443 removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (§ 1443(2) limited to federal officers and similar agents)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s notice must plausibly establish amount-in-controversy)