Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC v. Master
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-09914
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Avalon Morrison Park Apartments v. Master: Judge Cousins ordered defendants to explain why their removed eviction case should not return to state court.
Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC, Arthur Master, and Dejan Kuzmanovic; the case’s possible return to Santa Clara County Superior Court was at issue.
What happened
Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC sued Arthur Master and Dejan Kuzmanovic in an unlawful-detainer case in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that the federal CARES Act created federal jurisdiction.
The court said the complaint raises only a state-law claim and does not appear to involve a substantial federal question. It also said the defendants had not shown diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute.
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered the defendants to respond in writing by January 18, 2022, explaining why the case should not be sent back to state court. The order did not itself remand the case; it said the case will be remanded if the defendants do not respond on time.
The detailed version
- Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC v. Master · No. 5:21-cv-09914
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC brought an unlawful-detainer case against Arthur Master and Dejan Kuzmanovic in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Master and Kuzmanovic removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order required them to show cause—in other words, explain in writing—why the federal court should not return the case to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
Federal courts have limited authority, and the party seeking to use federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. The order considered two possible bases: federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.
The defendants’ removal notice asserted that the complaint raised a federal question because the federal CARES Act preempted California eviction law. The court observed, however, that the complaint’s sole claim was for unlawful detainer under state law and that the complaint did not appear to implicate a substantial federal-law question. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction had not been shown. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the plaintiff and every defendant and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Order
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins ordered Master and Kuzmanovic to file a written response by January 18, 2022, explaining why the case should not be remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The court stated that it must remand a removed case that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that a remand order may require payment of removal-related costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees. The court did not order remand at this stage; it stated that the case would be remanded if the defendants failed to respond on time.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.