Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00129/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESSEX MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, ESSEX JMS

ACQUISITIONS, LP,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15-CV-129-LAB (BLM)

REMAND ORDER

vs.

VICTORIA M. WHITE, AND DOES 1 TO

10 INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Victoria M. White removed this unlawful detainer action on January 21, 2015, under

the ostensible authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1443. That statute allows for the removal of civil

actions when a state court will not respect a defendant’s federal rights. Removal under 

§ 1443 requires the defendant to satisfy a two-part test: (1) a viable defense under federal

statutes protecting against racial discrimination, and (2) the existence of “state statute or

constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore federal rights.”

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S.

780, 788-92 (1966)).

White cites two statutes which protect against racial discrimination, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981

and 1982, but her notice of removal doesn’t allege how either statute provides a defense to

the unlawful detainer action, and there is no apparent likelihood that they do. See also

- 1 - 15-CV-129

Case 3:15-cv-00129-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Prominence Apartments v. Hagenah, 2014 WL 585405 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014); 13231

Sundance LLC v. DOE 1, et al., 2011 WL 1651226 (S.D. Cal. May 2, 2011); Fannie Mae v.

Gooding, 2011 WL 2636884 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over

unlawful detainer actions under § 1443). The notice of removal also alleges that “[t]he

California Superior Courts completely ignore the California Civil Rules of Procedure,” and that

“there is a pervasive state statutory program which . . . discriminates unfairly against pro se

litigants.” (Docket No. 1, at 11.) These allegations likewise do not satisfy the second part of

the test. See Patel, 446 F.3d at 999; California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir.

1970) (“Bad experiences with the particular court in question will not suffice.”).

White also mentions § 1441 in passing as a basis for removal, but no federal claim

appears on the face of the complaint. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal

question must be evident from the face of the complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La.,

522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Here, it isn’t. The complaint merely presents a single claim for

unlawful detainer arising under state law. 

Removal to federal court must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the propriety of

removal in the first instance. Provincial Gov’t v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th

Cir. 2009); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). This case presents more

than just doubt; there is no plausible basis for federal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c),

the Court must remand a removed case if, at any time before final judgment, it appears

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Here it is clear jurisdiction is lacking, so this case is

REMANDED to the San Diego County Superior Court. The pending motions are DENIED as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 5, 2015 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 2 - 15-CV-129

Case 3:15-cv-00129-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 2