(PS) Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Lam
2:19-cv-00979
E.D. Cal.
May 30, 2019

Background

  • Plaintiff (Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC) filed an unlawful detainer action in Solano County Superior Court (single cause of action: unlawful detainer).
  • Defendant Monica K. Lam removed the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
  • This was Lam’s second removal attempt asserting the same FDCPA-based jurisdictional theory; a prior removal in April 2019 had been unsuccessful.
  • The district court reviewed removal sua sponte and examined whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq.
  • Court emphasized the limited nature of federal jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and that defendants cannot create federal jurisdiction by asserting federal defenses or counterclaims in removal.
  • Holding: the court remanded the case to Solano County Superior Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action Complaint alleges only a state-law unlawful detainer claim Removal asserts FDCPA federal question (15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)) to establish federal jurisdiction No federal jurisdiction; case remanded because the plaintiff’s complaint raises only state-law claims and removal cannot be based on the defendant’s anticipated federal defenses

Key Cases Cited

  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and may only adjudicate matters authorized by Constitution and Congress)
  • Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2009) (federal-question jurisdiction cannot be created by an actual or anticipated counterclaim)
  • Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs existence of federal question jurisdiction)
  • Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal jurisdiction is read narrowly; any doubt favors remand)
  • Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (removal statute strictly construed in favor of remand)
Read the full case