Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sinatra and Cook Project, LLC sued Don Burkley and other defendants in Riverside County Superior Court in an unlawful detainer action, a summary California proceeding to recover possession of property. A defendant removed the case to the Central District of California. The district court had the notice of removal and the state court records provided with it. The order does not describe the property, the basis for eviction, or the removing party's arguments beyond the points noted below.
On October 28, 2026, the court acted on its own initiative, without a motion to remand, to test its subject matter jurisdiction. It started from settled rules: the right of removal exists only by statute, and those statutes are strictly construed against removal. The removing defendant bears the burden of showing original federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a). Because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, a court may raise the defect at any time, and section 1447(c) requires remand whenever jurisdiction is lacking before final judgment.
The ruling is a standard-form remand order with boxes checked for the grounds that applied, so its reasoning is brief and its factual findings are limited to what those checked grounds record.
The Court’s Holding
The court found no basis for federal question jurisdiction. The complaint contains no claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The removing defendant asserted that affirmative defenses raised a federal question, but the court explained that federal jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff's claims, not anticipated defenses. A federal defense does not make a state case removable, even if it is the only issue truly in dispute. The court also found that the removing defendant had not pleaded facts satisfying 28 U.S.C. section 1443(1). Even assuming the defendant invoked a statute protecting equal racial civil rights, the defendant identified no state statute or constitutional provision commanding state courts to ignore those rights, and nothing suggesting the state court would refuse to enforce them. Conclusory statements without factual support do not suffice. Section 1443(2), the court added, reaches only federal officers and those acting with them, and state officers who refuse to enforce discriminatory state laws. The court characterized the case as an unlawful detainer proceeding governed by California law.
The court also found diversity jurisdiction lacking, or removal on that basis improper, on several checked grounds. Not every defendant is alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. The complaint does not allege damages above $75,000, and the removing defendant did not plausibly allege that amount in controversy. The underlying case is a limited civil action not exceeding $25,000. The removing defendant is a citizen of California, which the order cites under the forum-defendant bar of section 1441(b)(2). The order does not state the plaintiff's citizenship.
The court remanded the matter to the Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the case was terminated in federal court. This is a jurisdictional remand, not a ruling on the merits of the eviction claim or any defense, which remain for the state court. The order mentions no fee award or sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court may remand a removed case on its own motion at any time before final judgment if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, because that defect cannot be waived.
- Federal question jurisdiction turns on the plaintiff's claims, so a federal affirmative defense cannot support removal of a state-law unlawful detainer action.
- Removal under section 1443(1) requires specific facts showing a state law commands denial of federal equal civil rights or that the state court would not enforce them, not conclusory assertions.
- A removing defendant who is a California citizen cannot rely on diversity to remove a California state-court action, and a limited civil case of $25,000 or less falls far short of the $75,000 threshold.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine application of settled removal law, and it carries no unusual precedential weight as a district court remand. It is a practical reminder that federal defenses, general civil rights claims and defective diversity allegations will not keep an eviction case in federal court. A removing defendant who cannot meet the burden should expect a prompt remand without a hearing or a motion from the plaintiff.