Burnes v. The Parks at Monterey Bay

Background

Joleigh Burnes and her two daughters, Riana Martinez and Olivia Martinez, filed the action in the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey. They sued The Parks at Monterey Bay, Michaels Management Services, LLC, and Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC over their lease of residential property at Fort Ord and the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey.

The complaint asserted four state-law causes of action: premises liability, wrongful eviction, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Plaintiffs alleged that the property had gas leaks, inadequate plumbing, and clogged drains that the defendants did not repair despite repeated requests. They also alleged exposure to gas, mold, and bacteria and resulting physical, emotional, psychological, and property damage.

Michaels Management and MBMH removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. They argued that the federal court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the property was privatized military housing located on land owned by the federal government. They also asserted that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over any claims outside its original jurisdiction.

Motion to Remand

A motion to remand asks a federal court to return a case to state court. Plaintiffs argued that federal jurisdiction did not exist under the federal-enclave doctrine because California and the federal government exercised concurrent legislative jurisdiction over the property. The defendants argued that the removal notice provided initial evidence that the property was within a federal enclave and that plaintiffs had not shown that concurrent jurisdiction covered the property.

The court explained that the federal-enclave doctrine can create federal-question jurisdiction for claims based on conduct occurring on a federal enclave. But the Ninth Circuit has held that the doctrine does not apply when the state exercises broad concurrent legislative jurisdiction over federal land.

The court found that the property was located at Fort Ord and that a November 29, 2000, California State Lands Commission resolution established concurrent legislative jurisdiction over Fort Ord Military Reservation and the Presidio of Monterey. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lake v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, the court held that the federal-enclave doctrine did not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over this action, which asserted only state-law claims.

The court also found that the defendants’ allegations in the removal notice were not enough to overcome plaintiffs’ factual challenge to jurisdiction. After plaintiffs submitted evidence of concurrent jurisdiction, the defendants had to provide competent proof establishing federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that they provided no such proof.

Attorney Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs requested attorney fees and costs incurred because of the removal. The court explained that fees may be awarded when the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal, absent unusual circumstances. The court declined to find that Michaels Management and MBMH had a clear obligation to search Monterey County records for the retrocession agreement. It therefore denied plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees and costs.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for remand and denied plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees and costs. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the clerk was directed to mail a certified copy of the remand order to the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey.