Clayton Gardens v. Parsons

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CLAYTON GARDENS, 7 Case No. 25-cv-03414-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 NATHAN PARSONS, 10 Defendant. 11

12 13 Defendant Nathan Parsons removed this unlawful detainer case from the California 14 Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Parsons is proceeding pro se and has been granted in forma pauperis status in this 16 action. See Docket No. 4. Because it appears that this Court does not have removal jurisdiction 17 over this action, Parsons is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the case should not be remanded 18 to the Superior Court. 19 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling 20 within their jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action 21 could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statutes are 22 construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 23 313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption against 24 removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 25 Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. Progressive 26 Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court may remand a case to 27 state court sua sponte if it determines that jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Smith 1 Defendant’s Notice of Removal in this case invokes federal question jurisdiction. See 2 Notice of Removal at p. 3. Federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 encompasses civil actions 3 that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A 4 case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the 5 vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.’” 6 Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 7 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 8 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 9 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide 10 Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 11 392 (1987)). A federal question must arise from the complaint—it is “settled law that a case may 12 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. 13 Here, the Complaint is for unlawful detainer under California law. Although Parsons 14 asserts that the plaintiff’s action to evict him is in retaliation for his request for reasonable 15 accommodation of a disability and therefore violates the federal Fair Housing Act and the 16 Americans with Disabilities Act, Notice of Removal at p. 3, these are federal defenses and do not 17 provide a basis for removal jurisdiction.1 See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. 18 Nor can Parsons avoid this rule under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue 19 Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), cited in the Notice of Removal. Notice of 20 Removal at 3-4. In that case, the plaintiff brought an action to quiet title to land that had been 21 seized by the IRS and subsequently sold to the defendant. 545 U.S. at 310-311. The plaintiff 22 claimed that the defendant’s record title was invalid because the IRS had failed to give notice of 23 the seizure in “the exact manner required” by federal law. Thus, the claim asserted by the plaintiff 24 was found to be sufficient to support removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because it “turn[ed] on 25 [a] substantial question[ ] of federal law.” Id. at 312. In contrast, the question of whether the 26

27 1 Of course, claims asserted under these federal statutes likely would give rise to original 1 plaintiff engaged in disability discrimination is not apparent from the face of the complaint and is 2 || asserted as a defense in this case. 3 Accordingly, Defendant Parsons is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should 4 || not be remanded to the California Superior Court, County of Contra Costa, by filing a brief, not to 5 exceed ten pages, no later than May 9, 2025. Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, is 6 || encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the 7 Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help 8 Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 9 Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in Room 470 S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay 10 Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments, which may be in-person or remote (Zoom or 11 telephone) can be made by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing fedpro@sfbar.org. Lawyers at the 12 || Legal Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot 13 provide legal representation. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: April 22, 2025

J PH C. SPERO 17 ief Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28