SS Investments v. Haten

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/24/18. The Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. Case Number 18UD01217 The Court has reviewed this motion 2 and finds that Defendant meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant's request. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

SS INVESTMENTS,

14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-00894-TLN-DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REMANDING CASE

JOHN R. HATEN,

17

Defendant.

18

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant John R. Haten’s (“Defendant”)

19

Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). The

20

Court hereby remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, due

21

to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to

22

Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED.

23

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of

25

California, County of Sacramento. (See ECF No. 1 at 1.) On March 14, 2018, Defendant filed a

26

demurrer. (See ECF No. 1 at 35–43.) On April 2, 2018, Defendant filed an answer to the

27

complaint. (See ECF No. 1 at 44–50.) On April 12, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal

28

in this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
1

1

Defendant asserts that removal is proper pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 because

2

resolution of this case presents federal questions, which he suggests he may raise either as

3

counterclaims, cross-claims, or defenses.1 (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 4, 9.) He also asserts that it is

4

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) as otherwise Defendant will be unable to vindicate his

5

“equal civil rights.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 7–8.) Finally, Defendant states without analysis that

6

he is “entitled to remove to this U.S. District Court, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §

7

1334(b)[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 12.)

8

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

9

“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a state

10

court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’”

11

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R.

12

Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). With exceptions not relevant here, where Congress

13

has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal

14

jurisdiction.2 Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012).

15

The general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, permits the removal to federal court of any

16

civil action over which “the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28

17

U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal is proper under § 1441 only if the district court could have exercised

18

jurisdiction over the action had it originally been filed in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v.

19

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Courts “strictly construe [28 U.S.C. § 1441] against removal

20

jurisdiction,” and “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”

21

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any

22

time determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the improvident

23
24

1

26

Defendant erroneously cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in connection with this argument where it is clear from
context that he intended to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) Given that Defendant expressly disclaimed
relying on diversity jurisdiction to support removal, further discussion of diversity jurisdiction is unwarranted. (ECF
No. 1 at 9, 15 (“THIS REMOVAL IS NOT BASED on grounds of diversity of citizenship, amount in controversy of
$75,000 does not apply.”) (emphasis retained).)

27

2

25

28

The Ninth Circuit has identified the federal officer category of removals under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and
removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1453, as exceptions to the general rule.
Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2015).

2

1

grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy,

2

Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 974

3

(2005). The “presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

4

pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

5

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482

6

U.S. at 392. Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party

7

claim raising a federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v.

8

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60–61 (2009); Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys.,

9

Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831–32 (2002); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th

10

Cir. 2009).

11

The civil rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443, in relevant part, permits a defendant in

12

a state court civil case to remove the proceedings to a federal district court when a defendant is

13

“denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal

14

civil rights of citizens in the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). In order to successfully

15

remove based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), the defendant must satisfy the two-part test articulated by

16

the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788–92 (1966), and City of Greenwood,

17

Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966). See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-

18

99 (9th Cir. 2006). “First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that

19

are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.” California

20

v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). “Second, petitioners must assert that the state

21

courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state

22

statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal

23

rights.” Id. “The ground for removal under section 1443(1) is both specific and extremely

24

narrow.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA vs. Reznik, No. CV 15-06590 RGK (AJWx), 2015 WL

25

5156442, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (citing Davis v. Super. Ct. of State of Cal., 464 F.2d

26

1272, 1273 (9th Cir. 1972)).

27

///

28

///
3

1
2
3

III.

ANALYSIS
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

A close reading of Defendant’s Notice of Removal reveals three arguments for why this

4

case presents a federal question such that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is appropriate. Each of

5

these arguments must be rejected. First, Defendant suggests that in the course of the unlawful

6

detainer proceedings (and possibly related earlier proceedings) he has suffered harms at the hands

7

of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys in violation of his federal statutory and/or constitutional

8

rights. (See, e.g, ECF No. 1 at 2–4.) Whether Defendant desires to bring a counterclaim or

9

crossclaim, Defendant’s first argument must be rejected because federal question jurisdiction

10

cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim or cross-claim. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60–

11

61; Holmes Grp., Inc., 535 U.S. at 831–32; Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042–43.

12

Second, Defendant argues that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because he

13

seemingly wishes to assert a variety of federal law defenses, including among other things that

14

“State Court Eviction under an Unlawful Detainer Action deprives Defendant’s Constitutional

15

rights to due process[.]” (See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 4.) Defendant further states that Plaintiff has

16

“hid[den] in sheep [sic] clothing the true federal fair housing[,] retaliatory discrimination . . ., and

17

civil rights discrimination” issues that he seemingly wishes to offer as defenses. (ECF No. 1 at 5–

18

6.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer, which “does not

19

arise under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.” California Hous. Fin. Agency

20

v. Rivera, No. 2:12-CV-8236-SVW-JCG, 2013 WL 12142622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013);

21

see also Gutierrez v. Chavez, No. CV 13-04674 GAF (AJWx), 2013 WL 3729848, at *2 (C.D.

22

Cal. July 12, 2013) (“An unlawful detainer action is a true state law claim.”). Aside from

23

Defendant’s conclusory statements, there is no basis for finding that Plaintiff engaged in artful

24

pleading to defeat removal of a legitimate federal claim by attempting to disguise its claim as one

25

arising under state law. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 397 n. 2

26

(1981). Therefore, jurisdiction is lacking even if Defendant intends to assert a defense based

27

exclusively on federal law. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

28

Third, Defendant suggests, with little in the way of analysis and without citation to
4

1

authority, that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action at the time

2

Defendant filed the Notice of Removal and therefore removal is proper. (See ECF No. 1 at 2–3.)

3

Even if that were true, the Court could not exercise removal jurisdiction, so this argument must

4

also be rejected. See Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 243 n.17 (1981) (“In the area of

5

general civil removals, it is well settled that if the state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject

6

matter or the parties, the federal court acquires none upon removal, even though the federal court

7

would have had jurisdiction if the suit had originated there.”)

8
9

B. Civil Rights Removal
Defendant also asserts that civil rights removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

10

Defendant sets out a litany of allegations in conclusory fashion in support of removal. For

11

efficiency’s sake the Court will list three examples. Defendant alleges California has a

12

“pervasive state statutory program,” including California Civil Code § 2924, that violates various

13

federal statutory and constitutional provisions. (ECF No. 1 at 8, 11.) It allegedly does so (A) by

14

“both on its face and as applied discriminat[ing] unfairly against pro se litigants” and (B) with an

15

“express[] design[] to deny Defendants their equal constitutional rights to equal access to the

16

Courts and to make and enforce contracts for the maintenance of interest in property[.]” (ECF

17

No. 1 at 8, 11.) Additionally, he alleges “Constitutional rights . . . are systematically trampled in

18

[California] state courts,” including in the “trial of unlawful detainer cases following an alleged

19

non-judicial foreclosure.” (ECF No. 1 at 10.) Further, he alleges “the California Civil Code

20

procedures authorizing evictions violate” 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 because “there is a pervasive

21

state statutory program which both on its face and as applied discriminates unfairly against

22

Ethnic-Surname Americans[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 7–8.)

23

District courts have uniformly found that precisely these types of conclusory allegations

24

— some of which track the phrasing of Defendant’s arguments verbatim — fail to satisfy the

25

“specific and extremely narrow” requirements of § 1443(1). See, e.g., SC ROC III Enclave, LLC

26

v. Snell, No. CV 16-00673 SJO (AJWx), 2016 WL 552454, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016);

27

Eagle Vista Equities, LLC v. Sneed, No. CV 15-7232 MWF (AJWx), 2015 WL 5618851, at *2

28

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015). This does not change simply because Defendant attempts to implicate
5

1

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 or mimics the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). See, e.g., Carsten v.

2

Grider, No. EDCV 15-02615-R (DTBx), 2016 WL 74388, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) (“While

3

a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 may satisfy the first prong of this test, defendant

4

cannot satisfy the second” with “bare assertions” that “are entirely conclusory in nature.”). For

5

example, United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently found a

6

defendant had not shown removal was “proper under Section 1443” by alleging in an

7

“argumentative and conclusory manner” that “California state courts ‘rubber stamp’ all unlawful

8

detainer proceedings, California Civil Code procedures authorizing evictions violate[d] 42 U.S.C.

9

§§ 1981–82, and California Civil Code § 2924 prevent[ed] her from enforcing her equal rights to

10

contract for and secure real property rights.” Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Taylor, No. 16-

11

CV-06605-MEJ, 2016 WL 7332995, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016), report and

12

recommendation adopted, No. 16-CV-06605-WHO, 2016 WL 7325011 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16,

13

2016).

14

Contrary to Defendant’s suggestion, the filings made in this case in state court, including

15

by Defendant, do not support his position. For example, he cites without explanation that his

16

demurrer and answer demonstrate the Superior Court’s “seem[ing] oblivious[ness] to the

17

discrimination and retaliation of plaintiff.” (ECF No. 1 at 13.) However, he identifies nowhere in

18

those documents where such claims are made. In fact, Defendant represented to the Superior

19

Court that he would “seek other relief in the Unlimited Civil Court within this judicial district for

20

the violations of California Law as alleged therein.” (ECF No. 1 at 38.) Moreover, Defendant

21

asserted fifteen affirmative defenses, none of which seem to rely on his federal civil rights. (ECF

22

No. 1 at 45–48.) He has not shown he was prevented in state court from making any of the

23

additional arguments he now wishes to make, let alone that he was prevented for racial reasons.

24

Quite simply, Defendant has pointed to “no formal expression of state law that prohibits

25

[him] from enforcing [his] civil rights in state court nor [does he] point to anything that suggests

26

that the state court would not enforce [his] civil rights in the state court proceedings.” Patel, 446

27

F.3d at 999. Consequently, he has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

28

pursuant to § 1443(1). See Martingale Investments, LLC v. Frausto, No. CV 13-06871 SJO
6

1

(MRWx), 2013 WL 5676237, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013); see also U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v.

2

Azam, 582 F. App’x 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that “even assuming that the

3

prosecution of the unlawful detainer action violated [defendant’s] right to racial equality”

4

removal would be improper under § 1443(1) because defendant “failed to establish that the state

5

court could not enforce this right because a California statute or a constitutional provision

6

purported to command the state court to ignore her federal civil rights”).

7

C. Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1334

8

Defendant states without further explanation that he is “materially affected by and

9

interested in the subject matter of these proceedings” and seemingly therefore “entitled to remove

10

to this U.S. District Court, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).” (ECF No. 1 at 12.)

11

Quite simply, Defendant has not satisfied his “burden of showing that this unlawful detainer

12

action falls within the scope of the court’s § 1334 jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings.” Inv.

13

Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Cholakian, No. CV 13-02408 MMM (JCx), 2013 WL 2417952, at *4 (C.D.

14

Cal. May 31, 2013).

15

IV.

CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of

17

California, County of Sacramento. In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in

18

forma pauperis. (See ECF No. 2.) The Court has reviewed this motion and finds that Defendant

19

meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant’s request.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2018

22
23
24

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
7