Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff 3420 Blair Drive, LLC filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Flavio Gadret and Bryanna Berlay in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint asserted a single claim for unlawful detainer under California state law. On October 8, 2026, Gadret filed a Notice of Removal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Gadret also filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, docketed on October 8, 2026 as Docket No. 3.
The district court, proceeding in chambers, examined whether subject matter jurisdiction existed over the removed action. It reiterated that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, that the removal statute is strictly construed because Congress intended to restrict federal jurisdiction on removal, and that there is a strong presumption that the court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Gadret bore the burden of demonstrating that removal was proper.
The court considered the two possible bases for federal jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which Gadret invoked in his Notice of Removal, and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that Gadret had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal was proper. Plaintiff's complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law, and an unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law; once removed, it must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have also consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.
To the extent Gadret alleged that defenses based on federal law supported jurisdiction, the court explained that the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff's claims for relief, not on anticipated defenses to those claims. The court further found that Gadret failed to allege the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy, and therefore failed to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
For these reasons, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. It remanded the action to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and, in light of the remand, denied Gadret's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Key Takeaways
- An unlawful detainer action brought under California state law does not present a federal question sufficient to support removal, even if the removing defendant references federal tenant-protection statutes.
- Federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to base subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.
- Federal question jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff's claims for relief, not on defenses the defendant anticipates raising.
- A removing party must allege both the citizenship of all parties and the amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; failure to do so defeats removal.
- When the court remanded the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it denied the removing defendant's request to proceed in forma pauperis in light of the remand.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the well-established principle that state-law unlawful detainer actions belong in state court and cannot be removed to federal court merely by invoking federal tenant-protection statutes or asserting federal defenses. It underscores the strict construction of removal statutes and the strong presumption against federal jurisdiction, with the removing party bearing the burden of proving that removal is proper.
The decision also illustrates the procedural consequences of defective removal: remand to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and denial of ancillary federal requests such as an in forma pauperis application. Practitioners should ensure that any removal is supported by clear allegations of a federal question or complete diversity with the requisite amount in controversy.