Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cascade Funding RMS Alternative Holdings, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The removing defendant, identified in the order as Carmen Chavez (the caption lists Maria Chavez, et al.), is representing herself. She removed the case to the Northern District of California, and the order states removal occurred on October 6, 2026. Her notice of removal asserted federal question jurisdiction, contending the case arises under federal law, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Housing Act, because the eviction allegedly violated her due process rights and discriminated against her based on race. She also relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1443, arguing she could not receive a fair trial in the superior court because of the influence of plaintiff's counsel, the lack of procedural safeguards for self-represented litigants, and bias in summary eviction proceedings. She separately asked to proceed in forma pauperis.
Chief Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order on October 14, 2026. It is not a remand order or a final judgment. It is a preliminary order directing the defendant to explain in writing, by November 17, 2026, why the case should not be remanded because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and removal was untimely. Cascade Funding may respond by November 24, 2026. The order is unreported.
The Court’s Holding
On the present record, the court concluded that the defendant had not shown removal was proper. On the face of the complaint, the case is an unlawful detainer action, which the court described as a quintessential issue of state law that does not arise under federal law. Citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams and Northern District of California decisions, the court explained that a case raising only state law questions cannot be removed because the defendant invokes federal law as a defense or counterclaim. The due process and discrimination theories therefore do not supply federal question jurisdiction.
Treating her civil rights argument as an attempt to remove under § 1443(1), the court applied a two-part test. The defendant must assert, as a defense, rights given by explicit statutory enactments protecting equal racial civil rights. She must also allege that state courts will not enforce those rights, supported by a state statute or constitutional provision commanding state courts to ignore federal rights. She identified no such command and no specific reason the state court could not adjudicate her civil rights claims, and conclusory allegations of bias or inadequate procedural protections do not suffice.
The court separately found removal untimely. A notice of removal is generally due within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), with a later window if a paper first shows the case is removable. The defendant appears to have received the complaint by at least July 22, 2026, when she filed an answer, yet did not remove until October 6, 2026, and she offered no explanation for the delay. The court granted in forma pauperis status because she adequately demonstrated inability to pay filing fees. No remand has been ordered. The court noted that a remand order may require payment of just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, under § 1447(c), and reminded her that free help is available through the court's Federal Pro Se Program.
Key Takeaways
- Invoking a federal statute as a defense to an eviction does not make an unlawful detainer action removable on federal question grounds, because the claim as it appears on the face of the complaint controls.
- Removal under § 1443(1) requires more than allegations of unfairness: the defendant must tie the defense to equal racial civil rights and point to a state statute or constitutional provision commanding state courts to ignore those rights.
- A defendant who answers in state court and waits more than two months to remove faces the 30-day deadline in § 1446(b)(1), and the court noted she offered no explanation for the delay.
- An order to show cause is not a remand; the defendant has until November 17, 2026 to respond, and Cascade Funding may reply by November 24, 2026.
- If the case is ultimately remanded, the court may require payment of just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Why It Matters
The order is a routine but instructive screening of a self-represented defendant's removal of a state eviction case. It applies settled limits on federal question removal and the narrow civil rights removal statute, and it flags the timeliness problem as an independent obstacle, so even a viable jurisdictional theory would face a deadline problem.
Because it is an unreported, preliminary order from a magistrate judge, it carries no precedential weight, and the outcome remains open pending the defendant's response and any reply. Its practical value is as a statement of what a removing party must show, and as a warning that an unsupported removal can expose a party to costs and fees on remand.