Access Capital Investments Fund Two, LP v. Ramos et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 22, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/23/2016: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ACCESS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
FUND TWO, LP,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 16-cv-06434-MMC
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT
Re: Dkt. No. 5

EUFROCINIA RAMOS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte’s Report and

14

Recommendation, filed November 7, 2016, by which Magistrate Judge Laporte

15

recommends the Court remand the above-titled action, in which plaintiff alleges a claim

16

for unlawful detainer. Defendants have filed an objection. Having reviewed the matter de

17

novo, the Court hereby rules as follows.

18
19
20
21

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In their objections, defendants argue jurisdiction nonetheless exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1443(1).

22

In order to establish jurisdiction over a removed action pursuant to § 1443(1), the

23

removing defendants must satisfy a two-part test. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d

24

996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). "First, [defendants] must assert, as a defense to the

25

prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal

26

racial civil rights." Id. at 999 (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Second,

27

[defendants] must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that

28

allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or constitutional provision

1

that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal rights." Id. (internal quotation

2

and citation omitted). Here, although defendants assert that, under the Fourteenth

3

Amendment, they have due process and equal protection rights and consequently cannot

4

be discriminated against on account of their national origin, they do not point to any

5

provision of California law "that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal

6

rights," see id., and, in particular, cite no state law commanding state courts not to

7

enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could defendants do so, as it is settled law in

8

California that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may base a defense on the

9

Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Cal. App.
2d 242, 244, 255 (1962) (holding defendant, as affirmative defense to claim of unlawful

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

detainer, may assert plaintiff seeks to evict defendant due to defendant's race).

12

Consequently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1443(1).

13

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of

14
15

California, in and for the County of San Mateo.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: November 22, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2