South Bay Estates v. Jonathan Porfert et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE DEFENDANT DANDORAN'S NOTICE OFREMOVAL 1 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: the case is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 16R04650. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

CV 16-7665-DMG (RAOx)

Title South Bay Estates v. Jonathan Porfert & Thomas Dandoran

October 25, 2016
Page

1 of 2

Present: The Honorable

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE DEFENDANT DANDORAN’S NOTICE OF
REMOVAL [1]

This matter is before the Court on pro se Defendant Thomas Dandoran’s Notice of
Removal (“Notice”). [Doc. # 1.] The Court has reviewed Dandoran’s notice and the underlying
unlawful detainer action.
Dandoran argues that this Court has jurisdiction over the action because it “is a civil
action of which this [C]ourt has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1443(1),” thus bringing it
within the purview of sections 1441(a) and 1446. Notice at 2–3. Section 1443 permits removal
from state court for “[a]ny . . . civil action . . . [a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot
enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of
citizens of the United States.” § 1443(1). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test for
removal under this section:
First, the [defendant] must assert, as a defense to the [action], rights that are given
to [him] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.
Second, [he] 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) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966); City of
Greenwood, Miss. V. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966))). “Bad experiences with the particular
court in question will not suffice.” Sandoval, 434 F.2d at 636. Dandoran bears the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir.
2006).
The underlying case is an unlawful detainer action related to Dandoran’s and his
codefendant Jonathan Porfert’s failure to pay rent. Notice at 5–6 (unlawful detainer complaint).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-7665-DMG (RAOx)

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

Title South Bay Estates v. Jonathan Porfert & Thomas Dandoran

October 25, 2016
Page

2 of 2

In support of federal jurisdiction, Dandoran argues the following: (1) there is not a landlordtenant relationship between him and Plaintiff South Bay Estates, (2) South Bay “is not a bona
fide purchaser, or subsequent purchaser, to the property,” (3) that he is “stonewalled” and
prevented from arguing his case to the state court because South Bay “is now moving for
judgment against against [sic] [him], even while [he] was formerly in negotiations with [South
Bay],” (4) that South Bay’s counsel is “us[ing] their knowledge of the law in attempting to
prevent [him] from fully and accurately presenting his case,” and (5) that his and Porfert’s
“rights to equal protection under the law are non-existent in state court unlawful detainer
actions.” Id. at 3–4.
None of these arguments satisfy either prong of the two-part test for a section 1443(1)
removal. See, e.g., Group VIII Covina Props. LP v. Johnson et al., No. EDCV16-02155-JAK
(DTBx), 2016 WL 6068108, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016). Thus, Dandoran has not
demonstrated that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts. Sygenta Crop
Protection, inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002); Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass’n v.
Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of the foregoing, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Thomas Dandoran’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT