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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?