Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02925/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE KIND PROJECT DOWNTOWN, 

LP, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

LANITA J. LOYD, 

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK

ORDER

Plaintiff The Kind Project Downtown, LP brought this unlawful detainer action 

against Defendant Lanita J. Loyd under California state law on August 5, 2024. On 

October 23, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to 

remove the action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (See Not. of Removal

(ECF No. 1).) 

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 

Investors Life Ins. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). It is 

presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts, and the 

burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 

1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). The strong 

Case 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 3
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

2

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the court resolves all ambiguity 

in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042. That is, federal 

jurisdiction over a removed case “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). 

“If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand under 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997).

Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) as the basis for removal. (Not. of Removal 

at 3.)1 Section 1443(1) provides for removal of civil or criminal case “[a]gainst 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 . . . .” To invoke removal under this section, a defendant 

must show “[1] rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting 

equal racial civil rights” and “[2] that the state courts will not enforce that right . . . .” 

Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and 

quotation marks removed), abrogated on other grounds by BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City 

Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021). The second step “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. at 999.

Here, Defendant fails to support both requirements for removal under Section 

1443(1). Defendant has not identified a specific statute protecting equal racial civil 

rights. Defendant has also not identified a statute or constitutional provision that 

commands state courts to ignore those rights. Defendant only broadly alleges that 

“Plaintiff used the state law to prevent [Defendant] from raising his federal claims in 

state court . . . [and] that he will be unable to protect his federal rights in state Court. 

1 It appears the pages of Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal are out of order for ECF No. 1. The Court uses the 

internal pagination to refer to pages within that document.

Case 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

(Not. of Removal at 3.) This allegation is insufficient to invoke Section 1443(1). 

Moreover, courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to remove unlawful detainer 

actions to the district courts in California using Section 1443(1). See HSBC Bank USA 

v. Coria, No. 2:22-cv-01003-DMG (AFMx), 2022 WL 504563, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 

2022) (collecting cases). 

Thus, removal of this unlawful detainer action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) is 

improper. Remand is mandatory as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 

this unlawful detainer action. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257.

Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 

Superior Court for all future proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 3