First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-05702
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre, Judge Pitts remanded the unlawful-detainer case because federal jurisdiction was lacking and denied Pierre’s fee-waiver motion as moot.
First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP and George Pierre; the case was returned to state court, and Pierre’s request to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
What happened
First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP sued George Pierre in a California state-court unlawful-detainer case, alleging that he had not paid rent. Pierre removed the case to federal court and did not respond to orders or the motion seeking its return to state court.
The federal court found no basis for jurisdiction. The parties were both identified as California citizens, the amount at issue was less than $10,000, and the complaint raised only a California-law unlawful-detainer claim. Pierre’s claimed federal defenses could not create federal jurisdiction.
Judge P. Casey Pitts granted First and Rosemary’s motion to remand, returning the case to state court. Judge Pitts also denied Pierre’s request to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre · No. 5:23-cv-05702
- Pitts
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP brought an unlawful-detainer lawsuit against pro se defendant George Pierre. The opinion states that First and Rosemary leased property to Pierre in October 2020 and alleged that he had been delinquent in paying rent since August 2023. First and Rosemary filed the action in Santa Clara County Superior Court in September 2023. Pierre removed it to federal court on November 6, 2023.
Before the case was reassigned to District Judge P. Casey Pitts, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins ordered Pierre to explain why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Pierre did not respond. First and Rosemary then moved to remand the case to state court. Pierre also had a pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying filing fees.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that a federal court must remand a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction before final judgment. The party who removes a case to federal court bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. The court considered diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction.
Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because, according to First and Rosemary’s motion, both parties were citizens of California, so complete diversity was absent. The amount in controversy was also less than $10,000, below the statutory threshold of more than $75,000.
Federal-question jurisdiction was unavailable because the complaint asserted only an unlawful-detainer claim under California law. Pierre argued that the rent request violated federal constitutional rights and a federal regulation concerning rent calculations for veterans. The court held that potential federal defenses do not create federal jurisdiction over a complaint based on state law.
Ruling
The court granted First and Rosemary’s motion to remand. It therefore returned the case to state court. The court also denied as moot Pierre’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The opinion does not state that either ruling was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.