IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 16, 2012
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF,
ROTONDA LLOPIS; GERALD LLOPIS, DEFENDANTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 14, 2012, defendant Rotonda Llopis, proceeding pro se, filed a
notice of removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior
Court of the State of California for Solano County.*fn1
Dckt. No. 1. This case is before the undersigned in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of
California Local Rule 302(c)(21).
This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction." Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, defendants have failed to meet that burden.
The notice of removal states that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 since "the rules of evidence and civil procedure are applied [in the state court unlawful detainer action] without equal protection," thereby denying defendants due process of the law. Dckt. No. 1 at 2. However, nothing in the record supports removal on that ground.
Section 1443's applicability is limited to "the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that the petitioner's federal rights will inevitably be denied if the case is not removed." Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 (1966) (internal quotations omitted). A case may only be removed under § 1443(1) if defendants can satisfy two criteria.*fn2 "First, [defendants] must assert, as a defense to the [action], rights that are given to [them] by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil 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)). "Second, [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." Id. In general, there must be a state law or constitutional provision that denies defendants an opportunity to raise a federal right in their state proceeding. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (quoting Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 803 (1966)).
Here, defendants have not met their burden of proof on the first prong since nothing in the notice of removal indicates a denial of racial equality. Defendants have also not met their burden on the second prong since they "point to no formal expression of state law that prohibits them from enforcing their civil rights in state court nor do they point to anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce their civil rights in the state court proceedings." Patel, 446 F.3d at 999. To the extent defendants seek the enforcement of constitutional provisions of general applicability, that is not a sufficient basis to remove their state unlawful detainer action to federal court under § 1443(1). Rachel, 384 U.S. at 792 ("[D]efendants' broad contentions under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cannot support a valid claim for removal under § 1443, because the guarantees of those clauses are phrased in terms of general application available to all persons or citizens, rather than in the specific language of racial equality that § 1443 demands."); Oregon v. Hadsell, 2008 WL 4534111, at *2 (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2008) (denying petition where the defendant asserted general due process and human rights violations); U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Garcia, 2012 WL 1232115, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (declining to find subject matter jurisdiction under § 1443 in an unlawful detainer action where the removing defendant alleged "discrimination" in state court).
Further, § 1443(2) is inapplicable to this case. The provision "applies only to federal officers or agents performing their duties under federal civil rights laws, as well as to persons authorized to assist them in affirmatively executing those duties and, if the defendant is sued for refusing to act, only to state officers and those authorized to act under them." Greenwood, 384 U.S. at 824 n.22. There is nothing in defendant's notice of removal indicating that defendant is a federal or state officer or person authorized to act under such an officer.
Nor does this court have federal question jurisdiction.*fn3
A review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff does not
allege any federal claims; instead, plaintiff alleges only unlawful
detainer under state law. Dckt. No. 1 at 8-10 (Compl.). Additionally,
the presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction "is governed
by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the
complaint "establishes either that  federal law creates the cause
of action or that  the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law."
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage
Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,
27-28 (1983)). Here, plaintiff's one cause of action is for unlawful
detainer under state law, and under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a
defendant's claims or defenses may not serve as a basis for removal.
See Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir.
Therefore, because defendants have not adequately established a basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded.*fn4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Solano.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).