Rocha v. Bailey
- Lin
- 3:24-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rocha v. Bailey, Judge Lin remanded the unlawful-detainer action for lack of federal jurisdiction and untimely removal, denying defendants’ other motions as moot.
The order returned Rocha’s unlawful-detainer action to Alameda County Superior Court, denied the defendants’ fee-free-filing applications and extension request as moot, and left Rocha’s fee and vexatious-litigant requests temporarily unresolved.
What happened
In Rocha v. Bailey, Cynthia Rocha filed an unlawful-detainer action against Tara Bailey, Jewel Bailey, and Jimmie Jones-Newton in Alameda County Superior Court. The defendants tried for a third time to move the case to federal court.
The court ruled that the case arose under state law and that the defendants’ claims or defenses could not create federal jurisdiction. The defendants also failed to establish a valid basis for removal under the federal civil-rights removal statute, and they filed their notice more than 30 days after receiving the complaint and summons. The court therefore sent the case back to Alameda County Superior Court and denied the defendants’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees and their request for more time as moot.
Judge Rita F. Lin temporarily withheld a decision on Rocha’s requests for fees and costs and to designate the defendants as vexatious litigants. The court said it would consider those requests if the defendants tried to remove the underlying case again before December 11, 2024; otherwise, it indicated that it was inclined to deny them.
The detailed version
- Rocha v. Bailey · No. 3:24-cv-06206
- Lin
- Sept. 12, 2024
Background
Cynthia Rocha filed an unlawful-detainer action against Tara Bailey, Jewel Bailey, and Jimmie Jones-Newton in the Alameda County Superior Court in March 2024. The defendants removed the action to federal court for the third time. The court had previously remanded the action in two related proceedings, identified by docket numbers 24-cv-03970-RFL and 24-cv-04774-VC.
Reasons for Remand
The court held that it had no subject-matter jurisdiction because the action arose under state law. The defendants’ claims and defenses could not establish federal jurisdiction. Although the defendants invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which permits removal of certain civil-rights cases, the court found that they had not met their burden to establish that removal was proper under that statute.
The court also ruled that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendants filed their notice of removal more than 30 days after they were served with the complaint and summons.
Disposition
The court remanded the action to the Alameda County Superior Court. It denied as moot the defendants’ applications to proceed without paying filing fees and their motion for an extension of time to respond to Rocha’s other motions and declarations.
Rocha requested fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and asked the court to designate the defendants as vexatious litigants. Because the defendants were representing themselves, the court temporarily withheld a ruling on those requests. If the defendants attempted another removal before December 11, 2024, Rocha could submit a status report identifying the attempted removal, and the court would consider that information in deciding whether to award fees and costs or designate the defendants as vexatious litigants. If no further removal occurred by that date, the court stated that it was inclined to deny both requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.