Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a notice of removal for an unlawful detainer action where the defendant claimed federal question jurisdiction and removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The court ordered the case remanded to state court and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Remand to state court“This action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that federal question jurisdiction does not exist for federal defenses or counterclaims (Vaden v. Discover Bank). It also correctly applied the strict construction of removal statutes and the specific requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, noting that the defendant's conclusory allegations of state court bias were insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for removal under that statute. |
Denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis“The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the court ordered the case remanded to state court, the federal court no longer has jurisdiction over the case, rendering any pending motions regarding federal court procedures, such as IFP status, moot. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of federal question jurisdiction based on the well-pleaded complaint rule and correctly applies the strict standards for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. It cites appropriate binding authority from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit to support its conclusion that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proving that removal was proper.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAGNUM PROPERTY Case No.: 20cv475-LAB (MSB) INVESTMENTS, LLC 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 14 ZENAIDA AQUINDE, et al. 15 ORDER OF REMAND Defendants. 16 17 18 Defendant Zenaida Aquinda removed this unlawful detainer action from state 19 court, citing federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 20 She disclaims diversity jurisdiction, and no other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction 21 appears in the notice of removal or complaint. 22 Aquinda’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not give rise to federal 23 question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 24 Aquinda seems to recognize this, and alleges that California state courts will not 25 respect her rights. She therefore relies on § 1443 as an exception to the well- 26 pleaded complaint rule. This statute, however, permits parties to remove otherwise 27 unremovable actions only where the party is asserting a federal claim of race 28 discrimination that state courts will not enforce. See Liu v. Tan, 2018 WL 1371252, 1 *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2018) (citing City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 2 ||U.S. 808, 824—28 (1966).) 3 Furthermore, a defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that 4 ||removal proper, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 5 jurisdiction. /d. (citing Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9" 6 || Cir. 2009)). Conclusory allegations that state courts do not or will not respect a 7 ||defendant’s rights are insufficient. Emerson v. Mitchell, 2019 WL 1405600, slip op. 8 *2 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 28, 2019) (citing Bogart v. People of State of Cal., 355 F.2d 9 ||377, 381 (9" Cir. 1966)). 10 The caption in the of removal also cites 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but 11 ||/neither of these give rise to jurisdiction here, and the notice does not mention them 12 except in passing. 13 This action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court of California for 14 ||the County of San Diego. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS 15 ||MOOT. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: March 17, 2020 20 / WM 4. (Ba ny 21 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 29 Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28