Richmond Housing Authority v. Clay

Background

Francis Clay filed a petition seeking to remove Richmond Housing Authority’s unlawful-detainer action to federal court. The court had previously ordered him to explain why the action should not be sent back to state court because his petition did not clearly identify a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Mr. Clay’s response did not establish federal jurisdiction. Although he did not identify himself as a plaintiff, his response appeared to be a complaint against Richmond Housing Authority. It sought $1,200,000, listed statements about his eviction, and attached a request to stay the eviction that had been submitted in a proceeding in the Contra Costa County Superior Court.

The court explained that the right to remove a case to federal court belongs exclusively to a defendant. Thus, if Mr. Clay intended to bring his own lawsuit against Richmond Housing Authority, he could not later remove that lawsuit to federal court. The court also stated that the negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims Mr. Clay mentioned did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The response likewise did not show that diversity jurisdiction applied, because it did not indicate the required diversity of citizenship between the parties.

Disposition

Because Mr. Clay did not meet his burden of showing that removal was proper, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley remanded the action to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. The order resolved where the case could proceed; it did not decide the underlying eviction claims.