Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Alicia Jason v. Lucia Gonzalez

March 7, 2013

TITLE ALICIA JASON
v.
LUCIA GONZALEZ



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl Not Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff Alicia Jason ("Plaintiff") filed this case in state court, stating a simple cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant Lucia Gonzalez ("Defendant") then filed a Notice of Removal, which removed this case from state to federal court. For the reasons that follow, the Court REMANDS the case to state court.

Defendant argues there is federal jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which authorizes removal of cases that are

(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;

(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.

Courts must apply a two-part test to determine whether a case is properly removed under § 1443(1). Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788-92, 794-804 (1966). "First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights." California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). "Second, petitioners 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.

Here, Defendant argues that the statutory scheme in the California Civil Code that authorizes evictions,

both on its face and as applied[,] discriminates unfairly against Ethnic-Surname Americans (all of whom are presumed to be unfamiliar with legal proceedings and/or illiterate in the English language and therefore ignorant of their rights) and in doing so directly violates Federal U.S. laws guaranteeing equality of access to the courts, ability to present evidence, and to make and enforce contracts for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining ownership of property in particular.

(Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, at 6:13-19.) Defendant also claims that California Civil Code ยง 2924, which generally addresses transfers of interests in real property and trustee liability, violates the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.