Bascom Avenue Development LLC v. Akbarzadeh

Background

Bascom Avenue Development LLC, which the opinion calls “Bascom,” rented property in San Jose, California, to Jason Akbarzadeh under a month-to-month agreement through its agent, Taylor Properties. Akbarzadeh operated Top Notch Auto Sales on the property. Bascom notified Akbarzadeh on March 8, 2022, that it was ending the tenancy on April 7, 2022. After Akbarzadeh did not surrender possession, Bascom filed an unlawful-detainer action in Santa Clara County Superior Court on April 8, 2022.

Akbarzadeh removed the case to federal court on April 20, 2022. Bascom moved to remand, meaning it asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The federal court treated the motion as suitable for decision without oral argument.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court found no diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be in controversy. Bascom’s complaint did not allege that the parties were citizens of different states, and Akbarzadeh did not argue that they were. The civil cover sheet filed with the removal notice instead stated that both Bascom and Akbarzadeh resided in Santa Clara County and were citizens of California.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

The court also found no federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction generally exists when a claim arises under the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court applied the rule that jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Bascom’s complaint asserted one cause of action: unlawful detainer. The court held that unlawful detainer is a California state-law claim and that no federal question appeared on the face of the complaint.

Akbarzadeh argued that federal jurisdiction existed because this case shared a lease, property, events, and parties with an earlier related case. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the earlier case involved indemnity, breach of contract, and California Unfair Competition Law claims concerning responsibility for improvements required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court stated that those claims were based on the lease agreement rather than the Americans with Disabilities Act itself, which meant the related case did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Bascom’s motion to remand. It ordered that the case be REMANDED to the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. The court’s ruling addressed whether the federal court had jurisdiction; it did not decide the underlying unlawful-detainer claim.