Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04325/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04325-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDEN HOUSING MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,

Defendant.

_______________________________________

No. C 07-04325 SBA 

ORDER

[Docket No. 16] 

Currently before the Court is plaintiff Eden Housing Management, Inc.’s (Eden) motion to

remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) [Docket No. 16]. Having read and considered the arguments

presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for

resolution without a hearing.

BACKGROUND

Eden is the landlord of an apartment complex in Richmond, California. Defendant James Karim

Muhammad resides in one of the apartments at the complex pursuant to a rental assistance agreement

between Eden and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). See Docket No. 16 at

2-3. HUD subsidizes a portion of Muhammad’s monthly rental payments. Id.

On July 8, 2007, Muhammad was served a three-day notice to terminate his tenancy for failure

to correct inspection violations, failure to permit access to the subsidized unit and for allegedly

assaulting two of Eden’s employees. See Docket No. 16 at 3. On August 9, 2007, Eden filed an

unlawful detainer action against Muhammad in Contra Costa Superior Court. Id. On August 22, 2007,

Muhammad filed a notice of removal in this Court to have the case removed based upon the involvement

of HUD in the contractual arrangement and upon alleged violations of his civil rights. Id. at 5-6.

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On September 12, 2007, rather than properly noticing its motion pursuant to the Local Rules,

Eden improperly filed an ex parte opposition to removal and a motion to remand the case back to state

court. See Docket No. 8. On October 31, 2007, the Contra Costa County Superior Court issued an order

to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on Eden for failing to dispose of the case within

45 days in accordance with Contra Costa County’s “fast track” guidelines established to obtain quick

resolution of unlawful detainer actions. See Docket No. 16 at 4. The state court continued the eviction

proceedings until December 19, 2007 to allow time for this Court to resolve the removal issue.

On November 14, 2007, Eden filed a second motion to remand that is virtually identical to its

first ex parte motion to remand. See Docket No. 16. Unlike the first, this second motion was properly

noticed for a hearing in accordance with the Local Rules. On the same day, Eden filed an ex parte

motion to shorten time, requesting that Muhammad be required to file his opposition to Eden’s motion

to remand by November 19, 2007. See Docket No. 13. This Court granted Eden’s motion to shorten

time, and ordered Muhammad to file his opposition papers, if any, by November 19. Muhammad has

failed to file any opposition to Eden’s motion to remand.

LEGAL STANDARDS

As a general matter, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431

F.3d 643, 650 (9th Cir. 2005). A defendant or defendants may remove to federal court any action over

which the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., either on the basis of

a federal question or the diverse citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 

Federal question jurisdiction extends to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint

establishes either that: (1) federal law creates the cause of action; or (2) the plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v.

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). The presence or absence of federal

question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal

question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s

properly pleaded complaint. Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002);

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

24 C.F.R. § 247.6(a) states that “[t]he landlord shall not evict any tenant except by judicial

action pursuant to State or local law and in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.”

3

California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th

Cir. 2000); see also Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936) (the federal question “must be

disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal”). The

existence of a defense based on federal law, however, is insufficient to support jurisdiction, even if both

parties agree that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue. Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183. The

plaintiff is the “master of the claim,” and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state

law. Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the burden of

establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking the statute. See Abrego Abrego v. Dow

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006); California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831,

838 (9th Cir. 2004). The propriety of removal is determined solely on the basis of pleadings filed in

state court, i.e., by looking “to the complaint at the time the removal petition was filed.” Libhart v.

Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Williams v. Costco Wholesale

Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Remand

Eden argues that Muhammad offers two reasons for removal to federal court: 1) the rental

contract involves a federal agency (HUD), and 2) Muhammad claims his civil rights were violated.

Eden correctly notes that HUD guidelines place jurisdiction for eviction actions involving subsidized

tenants in the hands of state court. See Docket No. 16 at 5; 24 C.F.R. § 247.6(A).1 Therefore removal

cannot be based on HUD’s involvement in Muhammad’s rental contract.

Eden further argues that its unlawful detainer action presents no federal question. It is well

established that “removability cannot be created by defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a

federal question. . . .” Takeda v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985)

(quoting Rath Packing Co. v. Becker, 530 F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd on other grounds sub

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

nom. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977)). The face of Eden’s complaint contains no

federal question, and removal cannot be based solely on allegations of civil rights violations first raised

in Muhammad’s counter-claim.

Additionally, state law prohibits a defendant from adding unrelated claims to an unlawful

detainer action. “The summary character of [an unlawful detainer] action would be defeated if, by

cross-complaint or counterclaim, issues irrelevant to the right of immediate possession could be

introduced.” Glendale Fed. Bank v. Hadden, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 102, 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting

Knowles v. Robinson, 387 P.2d 833, 836 (Cal. 1963); Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los

Angeles, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 120, 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). If Muhammad seeks to pursue any civil rights

violation, nothing prevents him from directly filing a § 1983 claim in federal district court within the

applicable limitations period.

Since removal cannot be based on the reasons offered by Muhammad, and since state law

prohibits his claims from being attached to the underlying eviction proceeding, Eden’s motion to remand

the case to state court should be granted.

B. Request for Costs

Eden also requests reimbursement for the costs associated with its response to Muhammad’s

removal request. See Docket No. 16 at 7. Federal law states that “[a]n order remanding the case may

require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of

the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(C). District courts have wide discretion over whether to award costs

or fees. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005); see also Moore v. Permanente Medical

Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992). “Absent unusual circumstances, attorney’s fees should

not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Patel v. Del

Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006); Martin, 546 U.S. at 141.

In the present case, Muhammad has offered no reasonable basis for removal. Clearly established

state and federal law unequivocally prohibit removal under the circumstances of this case. Morever,

Muhammad’s removal action has frustrated the summary nature of the unlawful detainer action against

him and has forced the prolonged expenditure of resources in both state and federal court. Finally,

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Muhammed has declined to oppose the motion to remand, implicitly recognizing the meritless nature

of the removal. Since the defendant has provided no reasonable explanation for his removal action, Eden

is entitled to be reimbursed the reasonable amount of its costs.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Eden’s motion to remand this

action to the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 [Docket

No. 16] is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the California Superior Court for Contra Costa

County. Eden’s improper Ex Parte Motion for Remand [Docket No. 8] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Eden shall file and serve a motion for allowance of fees

describing the services rendered in connection with its motion to remand, with attached time sheets,

within 14 days of the date of any order awarding sanctions. Defendant shall file and serve an

opposition to the Motion for Allowance of Fees within 10 days of receipt of the motion, and plaintiff

may file and serve a reply to the opposition within 7 days of receipt of the opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 11/28/07 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDEN HOUSING MANAGEMENT INC. et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MUHAMMAD et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04325 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 28, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

James Karim Muhammad

1555 3rd Street, Apt. 318

Richmond, CA 94801

Dated: November 28, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04325-SBA Document 19 Filed 11/28/07 Page 6 of 6