Stroffe Investments, LLC v. Candice Houtz-Ratterree, 5:22-cv-00895

Plaintiff Stroffe Investments, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Riverside County Superior Court.
A defendant removed the action to federal court; the district court reviewed the notice of removal and state-court filings.
Removing party invoked federal-question jurisdiction (based on asserted federal defenses), 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal), 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (bankruptcy jurisdiction), and diversity/amount-in-controversy.
The complaint alleges only state-law unlawful detainer claims and requests less than the federal amount-in-controversy thresholds for removal.
The court found multiple defects: no federal-question jurisdiction, §1443 removal not satisfied, §1334 inapplicable, lack of diversity/amount, the removing party is a California citizen, and the removing party was not a named defendant in the state complaint.
The District Court sua sponte remanded the case to Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331	Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims	Federal defenses/affirmative defenses create federal-question jurisdiction	Denied — jurisdiction depends on plaintiff’s claim, not defenses; federal defenses do not make case removable
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (civil-rights removal)	State courts enforce federal civil-rights laws	Removal appropriate because defendant claims federal civil-rights will be denied in state court	Denied — defendant failed to identify an explicit statutory federal right and show state courts would refuse enforcement
Bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334	Underlying action arises under Title 11 (as asserted by removing party)	Removal proper under bankruptcy jurisdiction	Denied — unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11
Diversity/amount-in-controversy and procedural defects	Removal satisfies diversity and amount requirements (as claimed)	Removing party asserts diversity or sufficient amount	Denied — parties are not completely diverse, amount-in-controversy not plausibly > $75,000 (case is limited civil action ≤ $25,000), removing party is a California citizen, and removing party was not a named defendant

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (removal is statutory and must be shown by defendant)
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1918) (state suits remain unless Congress provides removal)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (burden on removing party; removal statutes strictly construed)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
ARCO Env’t Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Env’t Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (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 render a state action removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal defenses cannot support removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1966) (limitations on § 1443(2) removal for federal officers)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for § 1443(1) removal and need to show state courts would deny federal rights)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2014) (plaintiff’s burden and standards for amount-in-controversy allegations in removal)