Hyriten LLC v. Fine
3:17-cv-06573
N.D. Cal.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Hyriten LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court seeking possession of Oakland property occupied by Tevita Fine.
- Plaintiff served a three-day pay-or-quit notice on September 28, 2017; complaint filed October 4, 2017.
- Fine filed a demurrer in state court on October 16, 2017.
- On November 14, 2017, Fine removed the action to federal court and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, alleging a federal question based on an allegedly defective three-day notice.
- The magistrate judge found removal improper, recommended remand to state court, reassigned the case to a district judge, and granted Fine’s IFP application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Unlawful detainer is a state-law action; no federal issue on complaint | The three-day notice was defective and resolution requires determining rights/duties under federal law | No federal-question jurisdiction; well-pleaded complaint presents only state law issues |
| Whether defendant can create federal jurisdiction by asserting federal defenses | N/A | Removal proper because federal defenses or counterclaims raise federal issues | Rejected — federal defenses or anticipated counterclaims cannot create jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal | N/A | Case removable under diversity if jurisdictional amount and diverse parties exist | Not satisfied: plaintiff’s citizenship unknown and defendant is a California citizen, invoking the forum-defendant rule that bars removal |
| Whether counterclaims/cross-complaints in unlawful detainer could supply federal jurisdiction | N/A | Any counterclaims could raise federal issues to allow removal | Unlawful detainer limited scope precludes such filings; they would not create removal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (federal courts presumed to lack jurisdiction absent affirmative showing)
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (removal statutes strictly construed against removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing party; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2002) (overview of federal jurisdiction bases)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Provincal Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (removal not permitted based on defendant-asserted federal claims)
- McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (previously asserted counterclaims cannot permit removal)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1978) (complete diversity required for diversity jurisdiction)
- Knowles v. Robinson, 60 Cal.2d 620 (Cal. 1963) (unlawful detainer’s limited scope precludes cross-complaints or counterclaims)