Tseng v. Gogue
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-00932
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tseng v. Gogue, Judge Freeman ordered defendants to explain why the removed unlawful-detainer case should not return to state court.
Saria Tseng, Joey Gogue, Miriam Gogue, and the other defendants involved in the state-court lawsuit were affected by the court’s questions about federal jurisdiction and whether the case should be returned to state court.
What happened
In Tseng v. Gogue, Saria Tseng sued Joey and Miriam Gogue in state court over an unlawful-detainer claim. The defendants moved the case to federal court, citing the Fair Housing Act and claiming Tseng had discriminated against them.
The court questioned whether the case belonged in federal court because Tseng’s complaint raised only a state-law claim. It also questioned whether all defendants in the state case had joined the request to move the case to federal court.
Judge Beth Freeman ordered the defendants to explain in writing by February 24, 2020, why the case should not be sent back to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The order did not itself send the case back or award attorney fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Tseng v. Gogue · No. 5:20-cv-00932
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
Saria Tseng sued Joey Gogue and Miriam Gogue in Santa Clara County Superior Court for unlawful detainer. The defendants removed, or transferred, the case to federal court. Their notice of removal cited the Fair Housing Act, a federal law, as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that Tseng had discriminated against them.
Jurisdictional concerns
The court identified two apparent problems with removal. First, federal-question jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Tseng’s complaint raised only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim. The court therefore stated that the defendants’ federal defenses or counterclaims could not provide the basis for federal-question jurisdiction.
Second, the court explained that all defendants ordinarily must join a removal request, except nominal parties. Although the notice stated that all defendants consented to removal, two defendants in the state-court lawsuit were not named as parties in the federal action, and it was unclear whether they had joined the removal request.
Order
The court stated that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 appeared improper and ordered the defendants to show cause in writing by February 24, 2020, why the case should not be remanded, or returned, to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The court did not award attorney fees and costs in connection with this order, but noted that fees and costs resulting from the removal could be awarded to Tseng under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The opinion does not state a final ruling on remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.