1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLADYS COPELAND et al., ) No. CV 23-3536-AB (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER REMANDING STATE-COURT ) ACTIONS TO STATE COURT 13 v. ) ) 14 MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL ) TRUST et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 17 On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs in this civil-rights action 18 filed a Notice of Removal, their second such attempt, purporting 19 to remove Los Angeles County Superior Court case numbers 20 22lbud01600, 22lbud01762, 22lbud01781, and 22lbud01792 to this 21 Court and asking that they be consolidated with this case. To 22 the extent they have successfully removed those cases here, the 23 Court sua sponte REMANDS them to the superior court for lack of 24 subject-matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. 25 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and 26 ‘a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause 27 is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’” Syngenta 28 Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where 1 Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes 2 are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada 3 v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. 4 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant 6 may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which 7 the district courts of the United States have original 8 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 9 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the 10 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. 11 Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); 12 Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), 13 in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 14 provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that 15 original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal 16 courts.” Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so 17 requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter 18 jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district court must 19 remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners 20 Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) 21 (citation omitted). “If at any time before final judgment it 22 appears that the district court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” § 1447(c). It is 24 “elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district 25 court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by 26 one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or 27 sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche 28 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). 2 1 From a review of the Notice of Removal, it is evident that 2 the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-court 3 cases, for the following reasons. 4 No basis for federal-question jurisdiction has been 5 identified. The complaints apparently do not include any claim 6 “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 7 States,” § 1331, as they are unlawful-detainer actions (see 8 Notice of Removal, ECF No. 17 at 7-11, 14-15). Removing 9 defendants assert that the affirmative defenses at issue give 10 rise to federal-question jurisdiction (see, e.g., id. at 6-7), 11 but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the 12 plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to 13 those claims.” ARCO Env’t Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Health 14 and Env’t Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An 15 “affirmative defense based on federal law” does not “render[] an 16 action brought in state court removable.” Berg v. Leason, 32 17 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994) (as amended). A “case may not be 18 removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . 19 even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, 20 and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only 21 question truly at issue in the case.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. 22 Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). 23 Nor have removing defendants alleged facts sufficient to 24 show that the requirements for removal under § 1443 are 25 satisfied. Section 1443(1) provides for the removal of a civil 26 action filed “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot 27 enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law 28 providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United 3 1 States.” Even assuming that the removing defendants have 2 asserted rights provided “by explicit statutory enactment 3 protecting equal racial civil rights,” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 4 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted), abrogated 5 on other grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 6 1532 (2021), they have not sufficiently identified any “state 7 statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command 8 the state courts to ignore the federal rights” or pointed “to 9 anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce 10 [defendant’s] civil rights in the state court proceedings.” Id. 11 (citation omitted); see also Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377, 12 381-82 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding that conclusory statements 13 lacking any factual basis cannot support removal under § 14 1443(1)). For example, removing defendants cite California Civil 15 Code § 2924 as infringing on their rights (see Notice of Removal, 16 ECF No. 16 at 8), but “§ 2924 . . . cannot be read to require 17 California state courts to disregard federal civil rights.” See 18 HSBC Bank USA v. Coria, No. 2:22-cv-01003-DMG (AFMx), 2022 WL 19 504563, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2022) (citation omitted); see 20 also JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Reznik, NO. CV 15-06590 RGK 21 (AJWx), 2015 WL 5156442, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (holding 22 that “conclusory” allegations that “California’s non-judicial 23 foreclosure and unlawful detainer statutes violate[d]” 24 defendant’s rights did not satisfy removal requirements in § 25 1443). Indeed, “[a]ttempts to use section 1443(1) as a basis for 26 removal of unlawful detainer actions have been repeatedly 27 rejected by the district courts in California.” HSBC, 2022 WL 28 504563, at *1. 4 1 Nor does § 1443(2) provide any basis for removal, as it 2 “confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or 3 agents and those authorized to act with or for them in 4 affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing 5 for equal civil rights” and on state officers who refuse to 6 enforce discriminatory state laws. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 7 384 U.S. 808, 824 & n.22 (1966). 8 Further, the underlying actions are unlawful-detainer 9 proceedings, arising under and governed by the laws of the State 10 of California. And diversity jurisdiction is lacking. Every 11 defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. See 12 § 1332(a). The complaints apparently do not allege damages in 13 excess of $75,000, and removing defendants have not plausibly 14 alleged that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. 15 Id.; see Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 16 89 (2014). The underlying unlawful-detainer actions appear to be 17 limited civil actions that do not exceed $25,000. And removing 18 defendants are citizens of California. See § 1441(b)(2). 19 Finally, removing defendants have not complied with § 20 1446(a) (requiring removing party to attach to notice of removal 21 “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such 22 defendant”). The removal also appears to be untimely under § 23 1446(b)(1), as the cases they seek to remove were filed in 2022. 24 (See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 16 at 15.) Thus, the Notice of 25 Removal is procedurally deficient as well. 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiffs’ 27 Notice of Removal succeeded in removing Los Angeles County 28 Superior Court case numbers 22lbud01600, 22lbud01762, 5 221bud01781, and 221bud01792 to this Court, the state-court 2\|/matters are REMANDED to the superior court for lack of 3 || subject-matter jurisdiction.

IS SO ORDERED.

(nd 6 || paTEp: July 3, 2023

ANDRE BIROTTE JR.

7 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 Ce: Los Angeles County Superior Court

11 12 Presented by: fro Prenllat~ Jean Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28