(UD) (PS) Cool Time LLC v. Chidester
2:19-cv-01961
E.D. Cal.Oct 21, 2019Background
- Defendant Evan Chidester, proceeding pro se, removed a Sacramento County unlawful detainer action to federal court on September 26, 2019.
- Plaintiff Cool Time LLC's state-court complaint alleged only unlawful detainer (state-law claim).
- Chidester's notice of removal asserted federal-question jurisdiction, claiming his demurrer/rights required federal-law determination.
- The court applied the well-pleaded complaint rule: a defendant’s demurrer or anticipated defenses cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.
- Chidester provided no facts about amount in controversy or parties’ citizenship, so diversity jurisdiction was not established.
- The court remanded the case to state court and denied Chidester’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer; no federal question | Removal proper because resolution of demurrer/defendant’s rights depends on federal law | No federal-question jurisdiction; well-pleaded complaint controls; defense cannot confer jurisdiction |
| Diversity jurisdiction | No showing of required $75,000 amount or complete diversity | (No facts alleged to establish amount or citizenship) | Diversity not established; removal fails |
| Motion to proceed in forma pauperis | N/A (plaintiff sought remand) | Requests IFP, but jurisdiction lacking | IFP motion denied as moot after sua sponte remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (establishing the well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (defendant’s counterclaims or defenses cannot create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading only state-law claims)
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden on removing party to prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
- Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court may remand sua sponte if jurisdiction lacking)
- Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921) (federal courts must remand when jurisdiction is absent)