Andina Property LLC v. Fox

Background

The underlying action was filed in San Francisco Superior Court and asserted one claim for unlawful detainer. The federal court received an ex parte motion from self-described defendant “Tom Hernandez of-the-Ramirez family’s,” referred to as Hernandez in the order. Hernandez asked the federal court to enforce what he called an automatic stay by voiding filings or orders entered in the state case after removal and limiting the authority of state-court officers while the case remained in federal court.

Hernandez was not a named party in the action. On February 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Corley had ordered him to explain apparent problems with the removal, but Hernandez did not respond.

Jurisdiction and Removal

The court concluded that Hernandez could not seek the requested relief because he lacked standing to remove the action. The removal statute permits removal by a defendant or defendants, and Hernandez was not named as one.

The court also concluded that it lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The underlying complaint asserted only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim, and the amount demanded did not exceed $10,000. The court separately found no basis for diversity jurisdiction, which requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The federal-law violations listed in the notice of removal did not establish jurisdiction. Even if treated as defenses, federal defenses generally do not permit removal.

Disposition

The court denied Hernandez’s requests and remanded the action to San Francisco Superior Court. It therefore terminated Magistrate Judge Corley’s March 2, 2020 report and recommendation. The court also noted that the state action had previously been removed and remanded, and warned that any improper later removal by Laura Fox or others acting on her behalf would be subject to appropriate sanctions.