Yan v. Equaan D. Smith
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-06481
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Weiqing Yan v. Equaan Smith: Judge Ponato remanded the eviction case, denied attorney fees, and terminated the motion to strike without prejudice.
The case returns to Alameda County Superior Court for Weiqing Yan, Equaan Smith, Russell Robinson, and Ruslan Vdovicenco. Yan did not receive attorney fees, and her motion to strike Vdovicenco’s counter-complaint was terminated without prejudice.
What happened
In Weiqing Yan v. Equaan D. Smith, et al., Weiqing Yan sued in Alameda County Superior Court over an alleged unlawful eviction. One defendant, Ruslan Vdovicenco, moved the case to federal court, arguing that a federal tenant-protection law applied.
The federal court found no basis to keep the case. Yan’s complaint raised only a California unlawful-detainer claim, and a federal defense does not allow a state-law case to be moved to federal court. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the amount in controversy was not shown to exceed $75,000 and the record indicated that defendants resided in California.
Judge Ponato remanded the case to Alameda County Superior Court, denied Yan’s request for attorney fees, and terminated her motion to strike Vdovicenco’s counter-complaint without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Yan v. Equaan D. Smith · No. 3:25-cv-06481
- Kandis Westmore
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Weiqing Yan filed an unlawful-detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court against Equaan Smith, Russell Robinson, and Ruslan Vdovicenco. Vdovicenco, representing himself, removed the case to federal court. He asserted that federal-question jurisdiction existed because he believed Yan had violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, a federal law concerning certain tenant protections after foreclosure.
Vdovicenco later filed a counter-complaint against Yan and others, alleging breach of an oral agreement and unlawful eviction. Yan asked the federal court to remand the case to state court, to strike the counter-complaint, and to award her attorney fees related to the remand request.
Jurisdiction and remand
The court concluded that Yan’s complaint did not create federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint asserted only an unlawful-detainer claim under California law. Vdovicenco’s belief that the federal tenant-protection law might provide a defense to that claim was not enough to support removal, because a federal defense to a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
The court also concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Yan’s complaint stated that the amount in controversy did not exceed $10,000, and Vdovicenco did not show by the required evidentiary standard that the amount exceeded $75,000. The court also noted that the complaint indicated the defendants resided at the property in California, and the removal papers did not suggest otherwise. A case generally cannot be removed on diversity grounds when a served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action was filed.
Attorney fees and motion to strike
The court denied Yan’s request for attorney fees. Although the removal was not well taken, the court explained that fees are not automatically awarded whenever a case is remanded. The court gave Vdovicenco some benefit of the doubt because he was representing himself and facing eviction, and found that an attorney-fee award was not warranted.
The case was remanded to Alameda County Superior Court. Yan’s motion to strike Vdovicenco’s counter-complaint was terminated without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.