Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Paed

Background

Defendant Cecille Quesada Paed, proceeding without a lawyer, removed an unlawful-detainer action from the San Mateo Superior Court to the federal district court. The opinion describes the underlying case as a state unlawful-detainer action and states that Paed’s notice of removal referred to several federal statutes.

Jurisdiction

Federal jurisdiction means the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court case only when the federal courts would have original jurisdiction, such as federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The defendant has the burden of showing that removal is proper, and ambiguities are resolved in favor of returning the case to state court.

The court concluded that Paed had not established a basis for federal jurisdiction. It stated that none of the federal statutes mentioned in her notice of removal were at issue in the underlying state action. The court also noted that, in a prior attempt to remove the same case, Judge Chen had granted Catamount Properties’ motion to remand after finding that removal was likely improper and that the court lacked a jurisdictional basis. The opinion states that the parties’ circumstances did not appear to have changed.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause, directing Paed to explain why the action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or otherwise improper removal. Catamount Properties could, but did not have to, file a brief on the same issues. Briefs were due June 1, 2021. The court stated that it would remand the case if Paed failed to file a brief. The opinion does not state that the case had already been remanded in this order. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.