The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
This matter was removed from state court on June 1, 2012 based on federal question, diversity, and possibly 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
The complaint was filed December 23, 2011. It is a state law unlawful detainer complaint that does not state a federal cause of action. While the notice of removal raises issues of federal law, federal question jurisdiction is based on the plaintiffs' 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).
As for diversity jurisdiction, Defendant makes no attempt to allege the citizenship of the parties and the complaint, on its face, is limited to a $10,000 demand.
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)). Plaintiffs fail to "refer to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, ...