Saso v. Genho
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-02030
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Saso v. Genho, Judge Freeman remanded the eviction case to state court and denied the Sasos’ request for fees and costs.
Richard and Kristi Saso, Joyce Genho, and the unlawful detainer case, which was returned to Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
What happened
In Saso v. Genho, Richard and Kristi Saso sued Joyce Genho in Santa Cruz County Superior Court to remove her from residential property they had purchased. Genho removed the case to federal court and represented herself.
The court ruled that the complaint raised only a California state-law claim. Genho’s reliance on the federal CARES Act and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium provided possible defenses, but a federal defense cannot create federal jurisdiction. The court therefore granted the Sasos’ motion to remand.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the Sasos’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs, citing Genho’s self-represented status and personal circumstances. The clerk was ordered to send the case file to Santa Cruz County Superior Court and close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Saso v. Genho · No. 5:21-cv-02030
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
Richard and Kristi Saso filed an unlawful detainer action, a state-court case seeking possession of property, in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on February 22, 2021. They alleged that they purchased residential property in Capitola in December 2020, that Joyce Genho had been renting it month to month, and that Genho refused to leave after receiving a 60-day eviction notice.
Genho removed the action to the Northern District of California on March 23, 2021. She proceeded without a lawyer. The Sasos moved to send the case back to state court and requested attorneys’ fees and costs. Genho filed a late opposition, which the court accepted as timely after reviewing the proofs of service.
Federal jurisdiction
The court explained that a defendant may remove a case only if the case could originally have been filed in federal court. The Sasos’ complaint asserted a single claim under California state law. Under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, federal jurisdiction generally must appear from the plaintiff’s complaint itself, and a federal defense does not establish federal jurisdiction.
Genho appeared to rely on federal-question jurisdiction by arguing that the eviction proceedings violated the United States Constitution and federal statutes. She specifically argued that the CARES Act and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium protected her. The court treated those arguments as defenses to the state-law claim and held that they could not support removal. The court also found that no exception to the well-pleaded-complaint rule applied.
Fees and costs
The court had discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to award the Sasos reasonable costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, resulting from the removal. It declined to make that award because Genho was representing herself and because of the personal circumstances described in her opposition.
Order
The court granted the Sasos’ motion to remand and denied their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It ordered the clerk to transmit the file to Santa Cruz County Superior Court and close the federal case. The order did not decide the underlying eviction dispute or whether Genho’s asserted federal protections would ultimately succeed as defenses in state court.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.