Solutions Re Inv LLC v. Allen
2:17-cv-00757
W.D. Wash.May 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Solutions Re Inv, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in King County Superior Court seeking possession of real property against Roberta J. Allen, David Allen, and other occupants.
- Defendant Roberta Allen removed the state unlawful detainer action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction, citing a federal statute raised in her Answer.
- Removal was effected on May 17, 2017; the Court reviewed jurisdiction sua sponte.
- Plaintiff's complaint asserted only state-law claims (unlawful detainer); no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.
- The Court noted diversity jurisdiction also appears lacking because the parties are all Washington residents.
- The Court concluded it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to King County Superior Court; Allen’s IFP motion was denied as moot and the case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction supports removal | Complaint raises only state-law unlawful detainer claims (no federal question) | Removal proper because Defendant pled a federal statute in her Answer and asserts federal defenses | Remand — federal question absent on the face of the complaint; federal defenses do not create jurisdiction |
| Whether the court may sua sponte evaluate subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiff did not argue; court required to ensure jurisdiction | Defendant did not contest sua sponte review | Court exercised its obligation to review jurisdiction sua sponte and found it lacking |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Plaintiff is Washington resident | Defendant is Washington resident; parties not diverse | No diversity jurisdiction; parties appear to share Washington residency |
| Effect of lack of jurisdiction on pending motions | Plaintiff’s procedural posture unchanged | Defendant had filed IFP motion | IFP motion denied as moot after remand; case closed |
Key Cases Cited
- Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant bears burden to show removal is proper)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (doubts about removal resolved in favor of remand)
- Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court must remand when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (court may raise jurisdictional questions sua sponte at any time)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal-question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint)
- O'Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1988) (look to the complaint as of the time of removal to determine federal-question jurisdiction)
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470 (1998) (a defense that raises a federal question does not make a case removable)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (federal defenses do not confer federal-question jurisdiction)