Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 14, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-01614
StatusUnknown

This text of Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC (Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 25-01614-MWF (ASx) Date: July 14, 2025 Title: Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC et al Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

On July 7, 2025, a Notice of Removal was filed by Defendants Kevin: Realworldfare (formerly Kevin:Walker) and Corey: Walker. (Docket No. 1). Defendants seek removal of an unlawful detainer action, arising under and governed by the laws of California. (See generally id.). The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, in order to remove a case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the defendant “must establish that at least one claim alleged in the complaint ‘arises under’ federal law.” Ultramar America Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1413–14 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). Defendants’ assertion of defenses or counterclaims for alleged Constitutional violations in the state court action does not give this Court subject matter jurisdiction for removal purposes. See Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal defense cannot support removal); Takeda v. Nw. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 & n.9 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The federal question defendants raise in their counterclaims does not provide a basis for removal.”); Nevada v. Bey, No. CV 21- 00460-APG (NJKx), 2021 WL 1160945, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 23, 2021) (remanding because plaintiff’s assertion of defenses or counterclaims for constitutional violations in state court action did not confer district court with subject matter jurisdiction). ______________________________________________________________________________ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. EDCV 25-01614-MWF (ASx) Date: July 14, 2025 Title: Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC et al Lastly, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 does not apply in this action. Section 1443 “provides an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, allowing a party to remove an otherwise unremovable action where the party is asserting a federal claim of race discrimination that ‘cannot [be] enforce[d]’ in the state courts.” Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Young, No. C-14-3170 EMC, 2014 WL 7336696, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966)). A successful petition for removal under section 1443(1) must satisfy a two-part test: (1) the petitioner must assert, as a defense, rights that are given to him by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights; and (2) the petitioner must assert that the state court 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. Liu v. Tan, No. 18-cv-00054-JSC, 2018 WL 1371252, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018). Defendants have not met their burden of establishing either prong. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Parties in court without a lawyer are called “pro se litigants.” These parties often face special challenges in federal court. Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an on-line application to request services as follows: on-line applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270.

______________________________________________________________________________

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Greenwood v. Peacock
384 U.S. 808 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Takeda v. Northwestern National Life Insurance
765 F.2d 815 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
Ultramar America Ltd. v. Dwelle
900 F.2d 1412 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kai Fan v. LWY Riders LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kai-fan-v-lwy-riders-llc-cacd-2025.