Meadowbrook Housing Partners, LP v. Thompson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Mavis Thompson, the original plaintiff in a state court eviction action, removed the case to federal court. The court sua sponte remanded the action to San Diego Superior Court because the federal removal statute does not permit a plaintiff to remove a case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Remand of action to state court“Therefore, the Court REMANDS sua sponte the case to San Diego Superior Court.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which explicitly limits the right of removal to 'defendant or the defendants.' The order recites that the plaintiff initiated the action in state court and subsequently removed it, which is legally impermissible. The court's reliance on *Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude* and *Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue* accurately reflects the well-established principle that plaintiffs cannot remove actions, even if they later face counterclaims (though the order notes no counterclaim was present). The decision follows directly from the statutory text and cited precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and correctly identifies the legal bar to plaintiff-initiated removal. It cites the controlling statute and two relevant cases that support the conclusion. The reasoning is sufficient for a sua sponte remand based on a clear statutory violation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAVIS THOMPSON, Case No. 23-cv-1300-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 v. STATE COURT
14 MEADOWBROOK HOUSING
PARTNERS, LP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 18 Plaintiff Mavis Thompson filed an action in San Diego Superior Court on June 28, 19 2023, appearing to allege Defendant Meadowbrook Housing Partners unlawfully evicted 20 her from her rental unit. (ECF No. 1-3.) On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff removed her action to 21 federal court and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. But the federal removal statute, 28 22 U.S.C. § 1441(a), does not confer the party who initiates an action in state court with the 23 right to thereafter remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (an action “may be 24 removed by “defendant or the defendants” (emphasis added); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. 25 Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580 (“Here, the railroad is the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) . . 26 . and cannot remove”). This is true even if that party’s opponent later filed a cross- 27 complaint against the plaintiff, which does not appear to be the case here. See, e.g., 28 Ballard’s Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Transue, 865 F.2d 447, 449 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Title 28 U.S.C. § 1 || 1446 authorizes removal only by defendants and only on the basis of claims brought against 2 ||them and not on the basis of counterclaims asserted by them. Plaintiffs cannot remove, 3 |}even when they are in the position of a defendant with regard to a counterclaim asserted 4 || against them.’’). 5 Therefore, the Court REMANDS sua sponte the case to San Diego Superior Court. 6 || The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 8 || DATED: August 3, 2023 Lin A (Ayphan 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28