Xiao v. Forshey

Background

Xiaoqing Xiao asserted one claim, titled “Unlawful Detainer,” against Randall Forshey, Sharon Forshey, and others. On April 7, 2021, the defendants filed a notice removing the case from state court to federal court. They argued that the action arose under federal law because of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, cited in the opinion as 12 U.S.C. § 5201.

Xiao filed a motion to remand, asking the federal court to return the case to state court. Forshey and Sharon Forshey did not file an opposition. The court determined that the motion could be decided on the written filings and vacated the hearing scheduled for June 11, 2021.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on decisions from other district courts in the Ninth Circuit concluding that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. The court explained that the statute may provide a defense to a state-law unlawful-detainer claim, but a federal defense to a state-law claim does not create federal-court jurisdiction. Because the action involved only the unlawful-detainer claim, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Ruling

The court granted Xiao’s motion to remand. It remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda. The opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of the unlawful-detainer claim.