(UD)(PS) The Kind Project Downtown, LP v. Loyd

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02925
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE KIND PROJECT DOWNTOWN, No. 2:24-cv-02925-DJC-CSK LP, 12

13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 LANITA J. LOYD, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff The Kind Project Downtown, LP brought this unlawful detainer action 19 against Defendant Lanita J. Loyd under California state law on August 5, 2024. On 20 October 23, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to 21 remove the action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (See Not. of Removal 22 (ECF No. 1).) 23 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 24 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 25 Investors Life Ins. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). It is 26 presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts, and the 27 burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 28 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). The strong 1 presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the court resolves all ambiguity 2 in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042. That is, federal 3 jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 4 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 6 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 8 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 9 Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) as the basis for removal. (Not. of Removal 10 at 3.)1 Section 1443(1) provides for removal of civil or criminal case “[a]gainst any 11 person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any 12 law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons 13 within the jurisdiction thereof . . . .” To invoke removal under this section, a defendant 14 must show “[1] rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting 15 equal racial civil rights” and “[2] that the state courts will not enforce that right . . . .” 16 Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and 17 quotation marks removed), abrogated on other grounds by BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City 18 Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021). The second step “must be supported by 19 reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the 20 state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Id. at 999. 21 Here, Defendant fails to support both requirements for removal under Section 22 1443(1). Defendant has not identified a specific statute protecting equal racial civil 23 rights. Defendant has also not identified a statute or constitutional provision that 24 commands state courts to ignore those rights. Defendant only broadly alleges that 25 “Plaintiff used the state law to prevent [Defendant] from raising his federal claims in 26 state court . . . [and] that he will be unable to protect his federal rights in state Court.

27 1 It appears the pages of Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal are out of order for ECF No. 1. The Court uses the 28 internal pagination to refer to pages within that document. 1 | (Not. of Removal at 3.) This allegation is insufficient to invoke Section 1443(1). 2 | Moreover, courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to remove unlawful detainer 3 | actions to the district courts in California using Section 1443(1). See HSBC Bank USA 4 | v. Coria, No. 2:22-cv-01003-DMG (AFMx), 2022 WL 504563, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 5 | 2022) (collecting cases). 6 Thus, removal of this unlawful detainer action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) is 7 | improper. Remand is mandatory as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 8 | this unlawful detainer action. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257. 9 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 10 | Superior Court for all future proceedings. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _October 25, 2024 “Diane J CoO tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28