Community Realty Property Management, Inc. v. Glaude
- 3:24-cv-00774
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Community Realty Property Management v. Glaude, the court remanded the unlawful-detainer case to state court and found removal improper.
The plaintiffs, including Community Realty Property Management, Inc., and the defendants, including Donald Glaude, are affected by the return of the case to Alameda County Superior Court. The federal court's remand ruling does not decide the underlying unlawful-detainer claim.
What happened
Community Realty Property Management, Inc. and others sued Donald Glaude and others in Alameda County Superior Court over an unlawful-detainer claim. Glaude removed the case to federal court, citing another federal case that he said raised federal questions.
The court ruled that the removed case asserted only a state-law claim, so federal-question jurisdiction did not support removal. It also ruled that diversity removal was barred because Glaude was identified as a California resident, and that the related federal case did not provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction because the relevant claims had been dismissed.
The court granted the motion to remand, declared the motion to expedite moot, and remanded the case to Alameda County Superior Court. The opinion is signed by the court; the judge's full name is not legible in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Community Realty Property Management, Inc. v. Glaude · No. 3:24-cv-00774
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Community Realty Property Management, Inc. and other plaintiffs brought an unlawful-detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court. Defendant Donald Glaude removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 8, 2024. The removal notice relied on what Glaude described as a simultaneously pending federal civil action that included federal questions.
The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They also filed a motion to expedite the hearing on the remand motion.
Court's analysis
The court explained that removal is permitted when a federal district court would have original jurisdiction, including through a federal claim or diversity of citizenship. It concluded that this case asserted only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim under California law. The case therefore did not present a federal question, and removal on that basis was improper.
The court also addressed diversity jurisdiction. Under the forum-defendant rule, a case otherwise removable on diversity grounds generally may not be removed when a defendant is a citizen of the state where the federal court is located. The court stated that Glaude was a California resident and therefore concluded that the rule barred removal. The court additionally noted that the case did not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Finally, the court rejected reliance on supplemental jurisdiction based on the related federal proceeding. Supplemental jurisdiction can cover related claims when a federal court has original jurisdiction over other claims, but the court may decline that jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction. The court stated that the related federal case had been dismissed, including a Truth in Lending Act claim as time-barred.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand because removal was improper. It ruled that the motion to expedite the hearing was moot and remanded the case to Alameda County Superior Court. The order resolved docket entries 9 and 10.
Judge
The provided opinion image shows a signature block identifying the signer as a United States District Judge, but the judge's full name is not legible in the supplied text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.