(PS) Butler v. Clarkson
2:18-cv-00177
E.D. Cal.Jan 31, 2018Background
- Defendants Shane Clarkson and Robert Burns, proceeding pro se, removed a Solano County unlawful detainer action to federal court on January 26, 2018.
- Removal asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.
- Plaintiff’s complaint in state court alleges only a state-law unlawful detainer claim; no federal cause of action is pleaded.
- Defendants argued federal law provided a defense and thus supported removal.
- The district court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte, noting the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the removing parties.
- The court concluded federal jurisdiction was lacking and remanded the case to Solano County Superior Court; IFP motions were denied as moot and the clerk was directed not to accept another removal of the same state action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists for removal | Plaintiff (Butler) asserted a state-law unlawful detainer only | Defendants claimed a federal-law defense created federal-question jurisdiction | No — removal improper; complaint raises no federal claim and a federal defense does not create jurisdiction |
| Whether the court must remand sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking | Implicit: plaintiff seeks state-court adjudication | Defendants sought federal adjudication via removal | Yes — court has duty to ascertain jurisdiction and remand when doubtful |
| Whether pro se status affects magistrate referral or procedural handling | N/A | Defendants pro se; sought IFP status | Court revoked any anticipated magistrate referral and denied IFP as moot after remand |
| Whether the clerk should accept repeated removals of the same state action | N/A | Defendants might refile removal | Clerk ordered not to open another removal of the same state unlawful detainer action |
Key Cases Cited
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal jurisdiction must be rejected if any doubt exists about right of removal)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs presence of federal-question jurisdiction)
- Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal-question exists when plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of substantial federal question)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (framework for determining when state-law claim raises federal issues)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (a federal defense, even if dispositive, does not authorize removal)