Clayton Gardens v. Parsons
- Joseph Spero
- 3:25-cv-03414
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Clayton Gardens v. Parsons, Judge Spero ordered Parsons to explain why the unlawful-detainer case should not be remanded to state court.
Nathan Parsons must respond to the order to show cause; the case may be returned to the California Superior Court, but the court had not yet ordered remand.
What happened
Clayton Gardens sued Nathan Parsons in California Superior Court in an unlawful-detainer case. Parsons removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the eviction allegedly violated federal disability laws.
The court explained that a federal defense generally cannot support removal when the plaintiff's complaint raises only a state-law claim. It said the complaint did not show a federal question and that Parsons's Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act arguments appeared to be defenses.
Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Parsons to file a brief of no more than ten pages by May 9, 2025, explaining why the case should not be sent back to the California Superior Court. The order did not yet remand the case.
The detailed version
- Clayton Gardens v. Parsons · No. 3:25-cv-03414
- Joseph Spero
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Clayton Gardens brought an unlawful-detainer action against Nathan Parsons in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County. Parsons removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The opinion states that Parsons was representing himself and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Parsons argued that Clayton Gardens's eviction action was retaliation for his request for a disability-related reasonable accommodation and therefore violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court case only if the case could originally have been filed in federal court. Federal-question jurisdiction generally depends on a federal issue appearing on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. A federal defense, even one based on federal law, ordinarily does not create removal jurisdiction.
The complaint here was for unlawful detainer under California law. The court said that the alleged disability discrimination was not apparent from the complaint and was instead being asserted as a defense. The court also rejected reliance on Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, explaining that the federal issue in that case was part of the plaintiff's own claim, unlike the federal issues asserted by Parsons here.
Order
Because it appeared that the court lacked removal jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Parsons to show cause—that is, to explain—why the case should not be remanded to the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County. Parsons must file a brief of no more than ten pages by May 9, 2025. The order did not itself remand the case. The court also encouraged Clayton Gardens, which the opinion says was not represented by counsel, to consult the Federal Pro Bono Project's Legal Help Center.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.