Simpson v. Alves

Background

Darlene Julie Simpson moved to remand the action to Alameda County Superior Court. The dispute concerned the Jarratt Family Trust and its property. Simpson’s complaint asserted two California-law claims: trespass and conversion.

Simpson argued that removal was improper because the complaint did not present a federal question, the amount in controversy did not meet the required threshold, and the forum-defendant rule applied. She also argued that removal was procedurally improper because Nina Maria Alves had not obtained the consent of all defendants.

Alves represented herself. She argued that Simpson had caused the removal of valuable property from the Jarratt family home and had obstructed justice. In supplemental filings, Alves also relied on a probate-court order that suspended Simpson as acting trustee. Alves argued that Simpson lacked standing to seek remand and that the federal court should hear a forthcoming cross-complaint concerning alleged constitutional violations.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court explained that a defendant may remove an action based on federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction generally covers civil actions arising under federal law. But Simpson’s complaint asserted only state-law claims for trespass and conversion. The court held that Alves’s references to constitutional violations and a forthcoming federal cross-complaint could not create federal-question jurisdiction. A federal defense does not make a case removable, even if the plaintiff allegedly lacks standing or the parties agree that the federal issue is the only question actually disputed.

Diversity Jurisdiction and Removal Procedure

The court stated that, even if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the forum-defendant rule barred removal when a properly joined and served defendant was a citizen of the forum state. The court found that Alves and Jarratt were California residents, so the rule applied.

The court also held that removal was procedurally improper. When an action is removed under the general removal statute, all properly joined and served defendants must join in or consent to removal. The notice of removal showed that Alves had not obtained Jarratt’s joinder in November 2023, and the docket showed that she had not obtained his consent in the months afterward.

Disposition

The court stated that it was not deciding whether Simpson lacked standing or whether defendants’ rights had been violated; it said those issues belonged to the state court with jurisdiction over the matter. For the stated reasons, the court granted Simpson’s motion to remand. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice qualifier to that ruling.