5:16-cv-05010
N.D. Cal.Feb 3, 2017Background
- Defendants Rattlesnake Properties, LLC and Brian Lee own ~40 acres in Santa Cruz; county inspectors found unpermitted grading and structures in 2013.
- Santa Cruz County sued in July 2013 for nuisance abatement, civil penalties, and costs under county code; county obtained stipulations (July 22, 2013; March 7, 2014) and later found Defendants in contempt for violating them.
- Lee (pro se) removed the state-court action to federal court on August 31, 2016, asserting federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1442, and 1444 and invoking the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and a federal land patent.
- County moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Lee separately moved to quiet title.
- The district court granted the motion to remand, finding no federal-question jurisdiction, §1442 officer-based removal inapplicable, and §1444 inapplicable; the quiet-title motion was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under §1331 | Complaint asserts only state law code violations and state remedies; no federal question | Removal is proper because Lee will rely on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and a federal land patent | No: well-pleaded complaint rule controls; defenses/counterclaims invoking federal law (treaty/land patent) do not create §1331 jurisdiction |
| Whether removal is proper under §1442 (federal-officer removal) | No federal officer is a defendant; dispute is between county and private parties | Lee contends title derives from a federal officer (land patent signed by President Harrison), so §1442(a)(2) applies | No: mere origin of title in a federal grant/land patent does not show the action affects validity of U.S. law or make Lee a federal officer for §1442 purposes |
| Whether removal is proper under §1444 (actions involving §2410 quiet-title against U.S.) | §1444 does not apply because U.S. is not party and no federal lien exists on the property | Lee asserts federal interest via land patent | No: §1444 only permits removal where the United States (or its lien) is implicated; neither is present |
| Whether removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. §1446 | County: removal occurred years after initial pleadings and after multiple state-court proceedings; untimely | Lee claims lack of proper service and that removal was timely on the eve of a fees hearing | Court notes even if federal jurisdiction existed, removal would be untimely given original filings in 2013 and amended complaint in 2014; Lee offered no evidence he was not served |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (federal counterclaims do not establish arising-under jurisdiction)
- Virgin v. County of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141 (federal land patents do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 (title arising from federal statutes does not automatically create federal jurisdiction)
- Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129 (federal-question jurisdiction assessed at time of filing/removal)
- Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing party to establish federal jurisdiction)