MTGLQ Investors, LP v. Manuel C. Roxas
8:17-cv-02080
C.D. Cal.Dec 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP sued Manuel C. Roxas (and Does) in Orange County Superior Court in an unlawful detainer (eviction) action governed by California law.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking various bases for federal jurisdiction.
- The Court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state-court pleadings and raised subject-matter jurisdiction issues sua sponte.
- Defendant previously attempted removal in two related federal cases; both were remanded.
- The district court found no federal-question, bankruptcy, civil-rights removal, or diversity jurisdiction support in the record and concluded the amount in controversy requirement was not met.
- The case was remanded to the California Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) | Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims | Federal issues arise from asserted federal-law affirmative defenses | No federal-question jurisdiction; defenses do not create removal jurisdiction |
| Removal under civil-rights statute (28 U.S.C. § 1443) | State courts will enforce defendant's federal rights | Defendant claims denial of ability to enforce federal civil rights in state court | §1443 not shown: no factual or statutory basis that state courts will not enforce rights; removal denied |
| Bankruptcy jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1334) | N/A (plaintiff proceeds in state court) | Removing party invoked §1334 as basis for federal jurisdiction | Not a Title 11 proceeding; §1334 does not apply |
| Diversity jurisdiction and amount in controversy (28 U.S.C. § 1332) | Complaint limited to unlawful detainer relief and damages under $25,000 | Defendant alleges diversity/amount in controversy met | Diversity lacking: parties not completely diverse and amount-in-controversy not plausibly met; removal improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory and construed narrowly)
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (state suits remain in state court absent congressional authorization for removal)
- 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 show jurisdiction)
- ARCO Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health and Environmental Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claim, not anticipated defenses)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense does not render state claim removable)
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under §1443 and need for showing state courts would deny enforcement of federal rights)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (scope of §1443(2) removal limited to federal officers and similar agents)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint controls amount-in-controversy showing; defendant must plausibly show otherwise to remove)