Menhardt v. Tracy
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:20-cv-08670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Menhardt v. Tracy, Judge Cousins granted Tracy and Teja permission to proceed without fees and ordered them to explain why removal should not be sent back.
Melissa Tracy and Merek Teja received permission to proceed without paying filing fees and were required to respond to the court’s jurisdictional order. Beatrix Menhardt’s state-court unlawful-detainer action remained subject to possible remand, but the court had not yet ordered remand.
What happened
Menhardt v. Tracy began when Melissa Tracy and Merek Teja moved Beatrix Menhardt’s unlawful-detainer case from California state court to federal court. The court granted Tracy and Teja permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case. It said Menhardt’s complaint raised a California state-law claim and did not show that the federal CARES Act created federal jurisdiction. The court therefore ordered Tracy and Teja to explain why the case should not be returned to state court.
Judge Nathanael Cousins did not yet remand the case. He ordered Tracy and Teja to respond within 14 days, and Menhardt to reply within seven days after being served with their response.
The detailed version
- Menhardt v. Tracy · No. 5:20-cv-08670
- Nathanael Cousins
- Dec. 24, 2020
Background
Melissa Tracy and Merek Teja removed Beatrix Menhardt’s unlawful-detainer action from Santa Cruz County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They filed a notice of removal and applications to proceed without paying filing fees.
Permission to Proceed Without Paying Fees
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person who cannot afford filing fees may ask to proceed without paying them. Based on Tracy’s and Teja’s financial information, the court found that both were unable to afford the fees and granted their applications to proceed without paying them.
Jurisdiction and Removal
The court explained that federal courts have limited authority to hear cases. A case may be removed from state court only if the federal court would have had original subject-matter jurisdiction over it. The party seeking removal has the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists.
The court determined that Menhardt’s complaint asserted one claim for unlawful detainer under California law. Tracy and Teja argued that the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act—the CARES Act—created federal-question jurisdiction because it imposed a temporary moratorium on some eviction filings and preempted state eviction laws involving landlords with forbearance agreements.
The court stated that Menhardt’s complaint did not allege facts showing that the CARES Act was the basis for her claim. It also stated that the unlawful-detainer action did not appear to be based on that federal statute and that federal jurisdiction could not rest merely on an anticipated defense. The court found that Tracy and Teja had not established a jurisdictional basis for removal.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted Tracy’s and Teja’s applications to proceed without paying filing fees. It did not yet remand the case. Instead, it ordered Tracy and Teja to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Their response was due within 14 days, by January 7, 2021. Menhardt could file a reply within seven days after service of the defendants’ response. Judge Nathanael Cousins also directed Tracy and Teja to the Federal Pro Se Program for information and limited-scope legal advice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.