The Razooky Family Trust v. Oklevueha Native Indian Church of Sacramental Healing, Inc.
3:17-cv-01162
| S.D. Cal. | Jun 12, 2017Background:
- Plaintiff Razooky Family Trust filed an unlawful detainer action in San Diego County Superior Court seeking possession and stating the amount in controversy was between $10,000 and $25,000.
- Defendant Oklevueha Native Indian Church removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendant claimed sovereign status, alleged civil-rights violations and asserted that certain California unlawful detainer statutes violate equal protection.
- Defendant did not allege facts establishing its federal recognition or tribal citizenship and provided no information on the trustee(s)’ citizenship for the Trust.
- Defendant asserted the property value exceeded $75,000 and checked inconsistent civil‑cover‑sheet/answer boxes regarding jurisdictional amount; the complaint itself limited damages to $10,000–$25,000.
- The Court reviewed removal jurisdiction sua sponte and found defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Complaint asserts only a state-law unlawful detainer claim | Removal alleges federal civil‑rights and constitutional challenge to CA CCP §§1161,1166,1179(a); claims sovereign status | No federal‑question jurisdiction; defendant’s federal claims are defenses/counterclaims and not on the face of the complaint |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Plaintiff (Trust) is a California entity; complaint shows damages ≤ $25,000 | Defendant alleges amount > $75,000 and marked civ. cover sheet indicating CA incorporation | No diversity jurisdiction; defendant failed to allege trustee(s)’ citizenship or its own citizenship; amount in controversy on complaint is under jurisdictional threshold |
| Whether removal burden satisfied | N/A | Defendant bears burden to establish jurisdiction | Burden not met; removal statute strictly construed against removal |
| Whether court may remand sua sponte | N/A | N/A | Court must remand when subject‑matter jurisdiction is lacking; court remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (U.S.) (federal court power limited to Constitution and statute)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S.) (courts must address subject‑matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte)
- Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir.) (sua sponte jurisdictional review is appropriate)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S.) (state actions removable only if originally cognizable in federal court)
- Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.) (standards on original jurisdiction for removed actions)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (federal‑question removal requires federal cause of action or necessarily raised federal issue)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir.) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on removing party)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved against removal)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S.) (federal jurisdiction cannot rest on a counterclaim)
- Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.) (federal‑law defense to state claim does not create federal jurisdiction)
- Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir.) (background on organization asserting Indigenous/church status)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.) (a trust’s citizenship is that of its trustee(s))