UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 31, 2013
THR CALIFORNIA, L.P., ETC.
ISAURA CERA, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk 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.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.