Hamid Rowshan v. Ken Bullock
5:17-cv-02020
| C.D. Cal. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Hamid Rowshan filed an unlawful detainer action in Riverside County Superior Court.
- Defendant Ken Bullock removed the case to federal court.
- The federal court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court filings sua sponte.
- The Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not allege damages over $75,000.
- Defendant relied on asserted federal defenses and removal statutes to justify federal jurisdiction.
- The district court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Complaint raises only state-law claims | Federal defenses create federal-question jurisdiction | No — federal defenses do not create § 1331 jurisdiction; removal improper |
| Diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiff is a California resident; damages under state limits | Diversity and amount-in-controversy satisfied | No — lack of complete diversity and no plausible >$75,000 allegation |
| Burden of removal proof | N/A | Removing party must show federal jurisdiction exists | Removing defendant failed to meet burden; remand required |
| Nature of action | Unlawful detainer governed by California law | Removal could still be proper if federal issue exists | Action is a state-law unlawful detainer; federal court lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and strictly construed)
- Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (suits begun in state court remain there absent statutory removal)
- Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (strict construction of removal statutes)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing party)
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden)
- ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated defenses)
- Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal-law affirmative defense does not render state claim removable)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense cannot supply federal question for removal)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction nonwaivable; remand required if lacking)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (removal standard and burden guidance)