KCM Brentwood, LLC v. Tinsley
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00937
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In KCM Brentwood v. Tinsley, Judge Martinez-Olguin granted remand because the unlawful-detainer complaint raised no federal question.
KCM Brentwood, LLC and Scott Tinsley; the unlawful-detainer action was returned to Contra Costa Superior Court.
What happened
KCM Brentwood, LLC v. Tinsley concerned whether a state-court unlawful-detainer case belonged in federal court. KCM Brentwood asked the federal court to send the case back to Contra Costa Superior Court.
KCM Brentwood had filed the case in state court. Scott Tinsley, representing himself, moved it to federal court and cited alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. KCM Brentwood opposed the move and requested remand.
The court granted KCM Brentwood’s motion to remand because the complaint contained only an unlawful-detainer claim and did not present a federal question. Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered KCM Brentwood to serve Tinsley with the order and file proof of service by August 25, 2023.
The detailed version
- KCM Brentwood, LLC v. Tinsley · No. 3:23-cv-00937
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
KCM Brentwood, LLC filed an unlawful-detainer action in Contra Costa Superior Court on December 5, 2022. Scott Tinsley, representing himself, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 2, 2023. Tinsley asserted that federal jurisdiction existed because of alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
KCM Brentwood moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. Tinsley opposed the motion. The court determined the motion without a hearing under the court’s local rules.
Court’s analysis
A defendant may remove a state-court case only if the case could originally have been filed in federal court. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. An anticipated federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.
The court held that an unlawful-detainer claim does not arise under federal law. KCM Brentwood’s state-court complaint contained only that claim and did not present a federal question. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the case and that remand was required.
Ruling
The court granted KCM Brentwood’s motion to remand. It ordered KCM Brentwood to serve Tinsley with a copy of the order and file a certificate of service by August 25, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.