Richards v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc.

Background

On December 11, 2019, pro se plaintiffs Larry Richards and Fantasia Brown filed a complaint and an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order (an emergency request for immediate court-ordered relief). They also sought an order requiring the defendants to explain why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction.

The defendants named in the request included United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., doing business as UDR Towers By The Bay, LLC; Dr. Benjamin Solomon Carson Sr., in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Wayne Sauseda, in his capacity as HUD Deputy Regional Administrator; Barbara Smith, in her capacity as Acting Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Authority; Sarah Ramler, in her capacity as Director of Leased Housing; San Francisco Mayor London Breed, in her official capacity; and various other individual defendants.

Plaintiffs’ Request and Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs asked the federal court to take immediate jurisdiction over San Francisco Superior Court case number CUD-18-662405, which the opinion describes as a pending unlawful-detainer action. Both plaintiffs resided in San Francisco, California, and they did not assert diversity jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction based on the parties being citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeding the statutory threshold.

Instead, the plaintiffs cited several federal statutes, including provisions concerning federal-question jurisdiction, civil-rights jurisdiction, declaratory judgments, and claims against the United States. The court concluded that the cited provisions did not confer federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction over the unlawful-detainer action and that it was not aware of any other independent basis for jurisdiction.

Ruling

Because the court lacked a jurisdictional basis to provide the requested relief, Judge Susan Illston denied the ex parte motion and application for a temporary restraining order. The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying unlawful-detainer action or the parties’ other claims.