Andina Property LLC v. Fox

Background

Andina Property LLC’s state-court complaint against Laura Fox and others asserted an unlawful-detainer claim. Tom Hernandez removed that action to federal court, invoked federal removal statutes, proceeded without an attorney, and applied to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s analysis

The court granted Hernandez’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It then ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—how he had standing, or the legal right, to remove the case. The court noted that Hernandez was not listed as a party in the state-court complaint and that removal generally is available to a defendant. The court also noted that all properly joined and served defendants generally must join in or consent to removal under the cited removal statute.

The court separately questioned whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed. Federal-question jurisdiction requires the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint to present a federal claim; a federal defense or federal statutes cited only in a notice of removal ordinarily do not establish that jurisdiction. Here, the removed complaint asserted only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim. The court also discussed diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy. The materials cited by the court stated that the amount demanded did not exceed $10,000.

Order and effect

The court ordered Hernandez to respond in writing by February 24, 2020, explaining why the case should not be remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that, if Hernandez failed to respond or failed to establish federal jurisdiction, the court would prepare a report and recommendation that a district judge remand the case. The order did not itself remand the case. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.