The Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Gayla Drew, 8:17-cv-01972

Background

Plaintiff The Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Inc. filed an unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court (Orange County).
Defendants removed the case to federal district court (C.D. Cal.), asserting federal jurisdiction.
The district court reviewed the Notice of Removal and state court records sua sponte for subject-matter jurisdiction.
Defendants relied on asserted federal defenses, an attempted § 1443 civil-rights removal theory, a bankruptcy jurisdiction claim, and diversity jurisdiction.
The complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer claims and does not allege damages over $75,000; at least one defendant is a California citizen.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction	Complaint alleges only state-law claims	Federal defenses/affirmative defenses create federal question	Denied — federal defenses do not create § 1331 jurisdiction; removal depends on plaintiff’s complaint
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443	State court will enforce federal civil-rights laws	State court would deny/enforce defendant’s federal civil-rights; asserts § 1443 applies	Denied — defendants failed to identify statutory/constitutional command showing state courts would refuse to enforce federal rights
Bankruptcy (28 U.S.C. § 1334) jurisdiction	Underlying claims arise from federal bankruptcy law	Defendants contend case implicates Title 11	Denied — underlying unlawful detainer does not arise under Title 11
Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) / amount in controversy	State claim for possession only; limited amount (< $25,000)	Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; parties are diverse	Denied — complaint does not allege >$75,000; at least one defendant is CA citizen; action is limited civil (≤ $25,000)

Key Cases Cited

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (federal jurisdiction must appear on face of plaintiff’s claim for removal)
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (removal is statutory and strictly construed)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (same — removing party bears burden)
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 (affirmative federal defense does not render a state action removable)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1 (federal defense alone cannot support removal)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (requirements for removal under § 1443(1))
Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377 (conclusory assertions insufficient for § 1443 removal)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (scope of § 1443(2) — limited to federal officers or those refusing to enforce discriminatory state laws)
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived; remand required if lacking)
Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (plaintiff’s complaint and removing defendant’s notice must show amount in controversy plausibly)

Result: The district court found no basis for federal jurisdiction and remanded the unlawful detainer action to the Superior Court of California (Orange County).