Ruth Tedmori v. Richard Rivas
5:19-cv-01280
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 25, 2019Background
- Defendant removed a state-court unlawful detainer action to federal court.
- Removal notice and state-court records were reviewed by the district court.
- Plaintiff's complaint alleges only state-law unlawful detainer claims governed by California law.
- Defendants asserted federal-question jurisdiction based on anticipated affirmative defenses and alternatively asserted diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaint did not allege damages over $75,000; the underlying unlawful detainer is a limited civil action (under $25,000).
- The court examined whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed and whether removal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Complaint raises only state-law claims | Federal defenses or laws implicated by affirmative defenses create federal question jurisdiction | Rejected — federal jurisdiction is determined from the plaintiff's complaint, not anticipated defenses |
| Removal burden | N/A (plaintiff seeks remand) | Removing party must demonstrate original federal jurisdiction | Removing party failed to meet burden; jurisdiction lacking |
| Diversity jurisdiction (amount-in-controversy) | Complaint alleges limited civil damages (≤ $25,000) | Amount-in-controversy met or could be shown by preponderance | Rejected — plaintiff’s complaint does not allege > $75,000 and defendant did not prove otherwise |
| Complete diversity of parties | Plaintiff asserts not all defendants are diverse | Defendant asserts diversity exists | Rejected — not all defendants shown to be diverse from all plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Protection Co. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (removal requires original federal jurisdiction)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health & Envtl. 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 make state action removable)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defenses do not confer removal jurisdiction)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; remand required if lacking)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears benefit of doubt on amount-in-controversy in removal context)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.