Andina Property LLC v. Fox
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Andina Property v. Fox, Judge Tse ordered the Foxes to explain why the removed cases should not return to state court and denied their motion without prejudice.
Andina Property LLC and the Foxes, whose removed state-court cases were subject to a proposed referral and recommendation for remand because the federal court found no subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Andina Property LLC sued Laura-Elizabeth Fox and others in California state court in two related matters involving property Andina bought at foreclosure. One case sought to remove the Foxes after they allegedly refused to leave; the other sought an order requiring the San Francisco Sheriff to remove them. The Foxes removed both matters to federal court.
The court said federal jurisdiction was missing. Earlier removals of the first case had already been sent back to state court, and the court found no new basis for another removal. The second case arose under California law, and the Foxes’ proposed federal defenses did not create federal jurisdiction. They also did not adequately establish the parties’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, and the case was not an admiralty or maritime matter.
The order did not itself remand the cases. Judge Alex G. Tse said he intended to refer them to a district judge with a recommendation that they be remanded, but first gave the Foxes until December 20, 2021, to respond. He also denied the Foxes’ motion to enforce the automatic stay without prejudice, allowing them to refile if they showed that the court had jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Andina Property LLC v. Fox · No. 4:21-cv-06608
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 6, 2021
Background
Andina Property LLC filed two related cases against Laura-Elizabeth Fox and others in California Superior Court. The first was an unlawful-detainer case, concerning the Foxes’ alleged refusal to leave property that Andina had purchased at a foreclosure sale. The second was a petition for a writ of mandate seeking an order that would require the San Francisco Sheriff to remove the Foxes from the property.
The Foxes removed both cases to federal court. The order states that the first case had been removed twice before and that both earlier cases had been returned to state court because federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that a case previously returned to state court may be removed again only when later pleadings or events reveal a new and different basis for federal removal. The court found that the Foxes had identified no such new basis for removing the first case.
The court also rejected the jurisdictional grounds asserted for the writ-of-mandate case:
- Federal-question jurisdiction: The petition arose under California law, not federal law. The Foxes’ intent to raise federal laws as defenses was insufficient because a federal defense does not permit removal. - Diversity jurisdiction: Diversity jurisdiction requires both the required citizenship of the parties and more than $75,000 in dispute. Without deciding the amount issue, the court found that the Foxes had not adequately alleged the parties’ actual citizenship. - Admiralty jurisdiction: The writ-of-mandate petition did not involve an admiralty or maritime case or a proceeding involving a prize brought into the United States.
Order
Because the court found that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, it stated that it intended to refer the Foxes’ cases to a district judge with a recommendation that the cases be remanded to state court. The order first allowed the Foxes to respond by December 20, 2021, explaining why the cases should not be remanded. Thus, the order was an order to show cause and did not itself state that the cases had been remanded.
The Foxes had also filed a motion to enforce the automatic stay. Judge Alex G. Tse denied that motion without prejudice. The order said the Foxes could refile it if they demonstrated that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.