RAC Development Inc v. Malcolm B Smith et al

Filing 5

Order REMANDING Case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Made JS-6 "see civil minutes for specifics" (Attachments: # 1 Remand letter) (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JS 6
Case No.
Title

Date

CV 15-0008 DSF (Ex)

1/5/15

RAC Development, Inc. v. Malcolm B. Smith, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles

This matter was removed from state court on January 2, 2015, based on federal
question jurisdiction. The complaint is a state law unlawful detainer complaint and does not
state a federal cause of action. While the notice of removal states several potential federal
defenses to the complaint, federal jurisdiction is based on the plaintiff’s complaint and not
on any counterclaims or defenses that a defendant might assert. See Holmes Group, Inc. v.
Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002).
The notice of removal also cites civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
Removal under § 1443(1) requires “[f]irst, [that] the [defendants] must assert, as a defense to
the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal
racial civil rights [and] [s]econd, that [the defendants] must assert that the state courts will
not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or
a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal
rights.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting California v.
Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.1970)). The removing defendant has made no
showing on either point. Defendant claims that California Civil Code § 2924 somehow, on
its face, “specifically violates the equal protection of the laws and equal access to the
courts,” (Notice of Removal at 7-8), but a review of that statute shows that it does not meet
the criteria for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Removal under § 1443(2) is only available
to state officers. See City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 n.22 (1966).
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1