Phoenix 328 Apartments LLC et al v. Walker, et al

Filing 8

ORDER that this action is remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the Maryvale Justice Court of Maricopa County. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Proceed in Forma P auperis (Doc. 3 ), is denied as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court, (Doc. 6 ), is denied as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaim, (Doc. 7 ), is denied as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/23/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(KMG)

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Phoenix 328 Apartments, LLC; and Glendale
Manor Apartments,

10

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants,

11
12
13
14

No. CV-13-01802-PHX-GMS
ORDER

v.
Janice Walker,
Defendant/Counterclaimant.

15

This case involves an action for eviction against Defendant Janice Walker.

16

Plaintiffs Phoenix 328 Apartments and Glendale Manor Apartments filed the special

17

detainer action against Walker in the Maryvale Justice Court of Maricopa County

18

pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1377 on August 27, 2013. (Doc. 1-1 at 11–12.) Plaintiffs allege

19

in their Complaint that Walker materially and irreparably breached her rental agreement

20

with Plaintiffs when she falsified information on her rental application regarding her

21

current address and prior eviction record in violation of A.R.S. § 33-1368. (Id. at 12.)

22

On September 3, 2013, Walker filed an answer and counterclaims in the state

23

action alleging race and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act (the

24

“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 and retaliation for opposing such discrimination. (Id. at 2–7.)

25

She then removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction

26

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and the violation of her civil rights pursuant to id. § 1443(1).1

27
28

1

This is not the first time. Walker attempted to remove another special detainer
action to this Court by asserting federal question jurisdiction. (See Doc. 6-9 at 2.) But that

1

(Doc. 1.)

2

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have subject-matter

3

jurisdiction only over those matters specifically authorized by Congress or the

4

Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A party may

5

remove an action from state court only if the action could have been brought in the

6

district court originally. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743, 747 (9th

7

Cir. 1993). But the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof on a

8

motion to remand to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

Further, the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing

10

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). There is a “strong

11

presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if

12

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.

13

In removing this case, Walker asserts that the Court has federal question

14

jurisdiction. “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

15

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

16

defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division

17

embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A case ‘arises

18

under’ federal law . . . if ‘a well-pleaded complaint establishes that federal law creates the

19

cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a

20

substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertech. Inc., 584 F.3d 1208,

21

1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S.

22

677, 689–90 (2006)). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may

23

avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

24

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

25

Considering Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations in their Complaint, this is a plain

26

special detainer action arising entirely under state law, namely, A.R.S. § 33-1377.

27

Further, there are no substantial questions of federal law that must be resolved in

28
attempt was unsuccessful and the case was remanded back to state court. (Id. at 3–4.)
-2-

1

determining whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief in this landlord-tenant dispute. State

2

law provides the claims and remedies to a landlord in circumstances where a tenant

3

allegedly breached a rental agreement. See id. §§ 33-1368, 33-1377.

4

Walker also removes this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). “The Supreme

5

Court, however, has given section 1443 a restrictive interpretation.” People of State of

6

Cal. v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). To remove under that Section,

7

Walker must demonstrate that: (1) as a defense to a civil action or prosecution, she has

8

asserted “rights that are given to [her] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal

9

racial civil rights”; and (2) “that the state court upholds a statute or constitutional

10

provision that orders the state court not to enforce those federally protected civil rights.”

11

Id. (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788–92, 794–804 (1966); City of

12

Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966)). But Walker has not

13

identified a relevant Arizona statute that would preclude her from asserting any of her

14

federal civil rights or any federal statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights

15

that the state court is refusing to enforce. Therefore, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1443 is improper.

17

Walker’s counterclaims against Plaintiffs of race and disability discrimination in

18

violation of the FHA arise under federal law. Nevertheless, the assertion of federal

19

counterclaims in an action alleging state law claims does not convert the action into one

20

“arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. Caterpillar, 482

21

U.S. at 392 (“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on

22

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”) (emphasis added); Holmes

23

Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (“[A]

24

counterclaim—which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the

25

plaintiff’s complaint—cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.”). Hence,

26

Walker has not shown that there is federal question jurisdiction in this case to serve as a

27

basis for removal.

28

///

-3-

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is remanded for lack of subject

2

matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the

3

Maryvale Justice Court of Maricopa County.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 3), is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court,
(Doc. 6), is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File

9

Amended Counterclaim, (Doc. 7), is denied as moot.

10

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2013.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-