Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Weiqing Yan filed an unlawful detainer action in Alameda County Superior Court to evict tenants from a property she purchased in January 2025 at a trustee’s sale following foreclosure. Ruslan Vdovicenco, claiming to be a tenant at the property, filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession and added himself as a defendant. He then removed the action to federal court, contending federal-question jurisdiction existed because Yan had violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA).
In October 2025, Judge Donato remanded the first removal, holding that the operative complaint did not present a federal question and that a federal defense to a state-law claim does not create federal-question jurisdiction; he also rejected diversity. Judge Donato declined to award fees, giving Vdovicenco — a pro se litigant facing eviction — “the benefit of the doubt.”
Vdovicenco then removed the case a second time, asserting the same PTFA-based federal-question theory. Yan filed the present motion to remand and requested $5,265 in attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros granted the motion to remand and partially granted the request for attorney’s fees.
On the merits of removal, the court reaffirmed the prior ruling. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule and Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, federal-question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint. A potential federal defense — including under the PTFA — does not provide a basis for removal to federal court. Yan’s complaint alleged only an unlawful detainer claim under state law, so federal-question jurisdiction was lacking. Diversity jurisdiction also failed. The case was remanded to Alameda County Superior Court.
On attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the court found that Vdovicenco’s second removal was objectively unreasonable: the same court had already remanded on the same theory three months earlier and had explained why the PTFA provides at most a defense. Continued removal in the face of a clear remand decision crossed the line from pro se confusion to objectively unreasonable removal warranting fee shifting under Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.. The court awarded fees in part — at a reduced amount that recognized Vdovicenco’s pro se status while still incentivizing compliance with the prior remand order. The court also acknowledged Vdovicenco’s counterclaims could proceed, if at all, in state court along with the underlying unlawful detainer.
Key Takeaways
- The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act provides a defense to unlawful detainer; it does not create federal-question removal jurisdiction. Removal of a state-law unlawful detainer case based on a PTFA defense is improper under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
- A second removal of an already-remanded case based on the same theory is generally objectively unreasonable under Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., supporting fee-shifting under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- Pro se status can buy a removing party benefit of the doubt on a first removal, but it does not survive a second attempt after the same court has explicitly explained why the theory fails.
- Counterclaims attached to an improper removal travel back with the case to state court when the case is remanded; they cannot independently sustain federal jurisdiction.
- Northern District judges will use § 1447(c) fee awards to deter abusive serial removals of state-court eviction cases by tenants seeking to delay enforcement.
Why It Matters
Improper removals of California unlawful detainer actions to federal court remain a chronic source of judicial frustration. Tenants facing eviction sometimes use removal as a delay tactic, especially after foreclosure, by invoking federal statutes like the PTFA as supposed bases for federal-question jurisdiction. The Northern District has consistently rebuffed those theories.
This decision is notable for the court’s willingness to award fees on a second improper removal even when the removing party is pro se. The signal is clear: pro se litigants get one free pass under Martin v. Franklin Capital, but repeated attempts after a remand explanation will lead to monetary consequences. For California landlords, the case confirms that PTFA-based removals can be defeated quickly, and that fee-shifting is available for second-round attempts.