Campbell v. Milous James Ivory
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-10569
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Phillip Campbell v. Milous James Ivory, Judge Corley ordered Ivory to explain federal jurisdiction or face remand of the unlawful-detainer case.
Milous James Ivory must respond to the jurisdictional order; Phillip Campbell’s unlawful-detainer action remains subject to possible remand to the San Francisco County Superior Court.
What happened
Phillip Campbell v. Milous James Ivory concerns Ivory’s removal of an unlawful-detainer action from San Francisco County Superior Court to federal court. Ivory, who was not represented by an attorney, claimed federal-question jurisdiction.
The court explained that the complaint alleged only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim and that a federal defense or anticipated federal issue does not create federal jurisdiction. The court also stated that the complaint indicated both parties were California citizens, so diversity jurisdiction was unavailable.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered Ivory to show cause in writing by January 12, 2026, why the case should not be sent back to state court. The court stated that it would remand the case if Ivory did not respond or failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Milous James Ivory · No. 3:25-cv-10569
- Kandis Westmore
- Dec. 22, 2025
Background
Defendant Milous James Ivory removed an unlawful-detainer action from the San Francisco County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The opinion states that Ivory was proceeding without attorney representation and relied on federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
Jurisdictional standards
The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court action only when the federal court has original jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint to assert a claim arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. A federal defense or anticipated federal issue does not establish that jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy.
The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. If the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction before final judgment, the case must be remanded to state court.
Application
The court stated that the removed complaint alleged only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer. Ivory argued that the complaint raised federal issues because the right to hold property was subject to federal oversight under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that argument unavailing because federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, and a federal defense cannot support removal.
The court also stated that the complaint indicated Ivory and Campbell were California citizens. It therefore concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Order
The court ordered Ivory to show cause why the action should not be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court. Ivory was ordered to respond in writing by January 12, 2026. The order states that, if Ivory failed to respond or if his response did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court would remand the action to state court. The opinion does not state that the case was remanded on December 22, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.