Harris v. Sabbagh

Background

Lee R. Harris filed a California unlawful-detainer action against Juliane Sabbagh in Alameda County Superior Court. The complaint sought immediate possession of property in Fremont, California, and asserted a single cause of action under California law. Sabbagh removed the case to federal court, arguing that it presented a federal question. She also applied to proceed without paying filing fees.

Jurisdiction and Removal

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. A defendant may remove a state-court case only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction when the case began. Federal-question jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant generally cannot create that jurisdiction through a federal defense, counterclaim, or argument in a removal notice.

Sabbagh argued that federal questions existed because Harris invoked an exemption from California tenant-protection statutes and because the validity of the termination notices allegedly depended on federally required disclosures. The court found that Sabbagh did not identify the federal requirements or cite supporting authority. It also found that the complaint did not refer to federal requirements and instead asserted only a California unlawful-detainer claim, which the court described as a claim created solely by California law. The court therefore concluded that the complaint did not present a federal question or a substantial federal issue. It further explained that unlawful-detainer proceedings do not allow cross-complaints or counterclaims that could establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court reassigned the action to a district judge and recommended that it be remanded to state court. This was a recommendation rather than a final remand order by the magistrate judge. The court granted Sabbagh’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion states that either party could file objections with the district judge within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and that failing to object within that period could waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.