Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde

S.D. California

Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde

DecidedMarch 18, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00475

StatusUnknown

This text of Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde (Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAGNUM PROPERTY Case No.: 20cv475-LAB (MSB) INVESTMENTS, LLC 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 14

ZENAIDA AQUINDE, et al. 15 ORDER OF REMAND Defendants. 16

17 18 Defendant Zenaida Aquinda removed this unlawful detainer action from state 19 court, citing federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 20 She disclaims diversity jurisdiction, and no other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction 21 appears in the notice of removal or complaint. 22 Aquinda’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not give rise to federal 23 question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 24 Aquinda seems to recognize this, and alleges that California state courts will not 25 respect her rights. She therefore relies on § 1443 as an exception to the well- 26 pleaded complaint rule. This statute, however, permits parties to remove otherwise 27 unremovable actions only where the party is asserting a federal claim of race 28 discrimination that state courts will not enforce. See Liu v. Tan, 2018 WL 1371252, 1 *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2018) (citing City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 2 ||U.S. 808, 824—28 (1966).) 3 Furthermore, a defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that 4 ||removal proper, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 5 jurisdiction. /d. (citing Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9" 6 || Cir. 2009)). Conclusory allegations that state courts do not or will not respect a 7 ||defendant’s rights are insufficient. Emerson v. Mitchell, 2019 WL 1405600, slip op. 8 *2 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 28, 2019) (citing Bogart v. People of State of Cal., 355 F.2d 9 ||377, 381 (9" Cir. 1966)). 10 The caption in the of removal also cites 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but 11 ||/neither of these give rise to jurisdiction here, and the notice does not mention them 12 except in passing. 13 This action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court of California for 14 ||the County of San Diego. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS 15 ||MOOT. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: March 17, 2020 20 / WM 4. (Ba ny 21 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 29 Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAGNUM PROPERTY Case No.: 20cv475-LAB (MSB) INVESTMENTS, LLC 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN v. FORMA PAUPERIS; AND 14

ZENAIDA AQUINDE, et al. 15 ORDER OF REMAND Defendants. 16

17 18 Defendant Zenaida Aquinda removed this unlawful detainer action from state 19 court, citing federal question jurisdiction and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 20 She disclaims diversity jurisdiction, and no other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction 21 appears in the notice of removal or complaint. 22 Aquinda’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not give rise to federal 23 question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 24 Aquinda seems to recognize this, and alleges that California state courts will not 25 respect her rights. She therefore relies on § 1443 as an exception to the well- 26 pleaded complaint rule. This statute, however, permits parties to remove otherwise 27 unremovable actions only where the party is asserting a federal claim of race 28 discrimination that state courts will not enforce. See Liu v. Tan, 2018 WL 1371252, 1 *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2018) (citing City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 2 ||U.S. 808, 824—28 (1966).) 3 Furthermore, a defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that 4 ||removal proper, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 5 jurisdiction. /d. (citing Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9" 6 || Cir. 2009)). Conclusory allegations that state courts do not or will not respect a 7 ||defendant’s rights are insufficient. Emerson v. Mitchell, 2019 WL 1405600, slip op. 8 *2 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 28, 2019) (citing Bogart v. People of State of Cal., 355 F.2d 9 ||377, 381 (9" Cir. 1966)). 10 The caption in the of removal also cites 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but 11 ||/neither of these give rise to jurisdiction here, and the notice does not mention them 12 except in passing. 13 This action is ORDERED remanded to the Superior Court of California for 14 ||the County of San Diego. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS 15 ||MOOT. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: March 17, 2020 20 / WM 4. (Ba ny 21 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 29 Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Aquinde, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magnum-property-investments-llc-v-aquinde-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack