THR California LP v. Isaura Cera et al

Filing 4

ORDER REMANDING Case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case number MVC1205950 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)

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

Date

EDCV 13-167 DSF (DTBx)

1/31/13

THR California, L.P., etc. v. Isaura Cera, 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 Riverside

This matter was removed from state court on January 28, 2013 based on federal
question and civil rights jurisdiction.
The complaint is a state law unlawful detainer complaint and does not state a
federal cause of action. Federal question jurisdiction is based on the plaintiff’s
complaint and not on any federal 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).
Civil rights 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 appears to believe that Defendants will not receive
an adequate hearing in unlawful detainer court. However, none of his mostly unspecific
concerns implicates an equal protection right – racial or otherwise. And, even assuming
that unlawful detainer courts have sometimes not provided full due process rights, the
removing defendant fails to “refer[] to a state statute or a constitutional provision that
purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.”
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JS 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2