5:19-cv-01104
C.D. Cal.Jun 17, 2019Background
- Plaintiff SJC II/Fourth and Haven, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
- Defendants (including Danielle Wellbrock) removed the case to federal court.
- The district court reviewed the notice of removal and state-court filings and questioned federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Defendants urged federal jurisdiction based on asserted federal defenses and referenced 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1443.
- The complaint asserts solely state-law unlawful detainer claims and alleges damages within California’s limited civil jurisdiction.
- The district court sua sponte concluded removal was improper and ordered remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction under §1331 | Complaint raises only state-law claims | Federal defenses/affirmative defenses create federal question | Rejected — federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's claims, not anticipated defenses (no federal question) |
| Removal under §1443 (civil-rights removal) | State courts can adjudicate rights; no claim | Defendants claim denial/cannot enforce federal civil-rights in state court | Rejected — defendants failed to allege facts showing state-court denial or statutory command to ignore federal rights |
| Diversity jurisdiction under §1332 / amount-in-controversy | Complaint alleges limited damages under state small-claims/limited civil limits | Defendants assert amount-in-controversy met and diversity exists | Rejected — not all parties are diverse; complaint alleges under $75,000 and limited civil action under $25,000; defendant is California citizen |
| Bankruptcy jurisdiction under §1334 | Not asserted by plaintiff | Defendants argued §1334 supports removal | Rejected — underlying unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11 |
Key Cases Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal removal is statutory; removing party must show original federal jurisdiction)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (existence of federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's claims, not anticipated defenses)
- Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under §1443 and need for factual showing that state courts will not enforce federal rights)
- City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (§1443(2) limited to federal officers and those executing federal civil-rights duties)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (burden/standard for proving amount-in-controversy in removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (removal statutes strictly construed; removing party bears burden of establishing jurisdiction)
- Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction requires remand)