{"id":395,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=395"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"parker-unison-agreement-forum-defendant-rule-1441b2-remand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=395","title":{"rendered":"Parker v. Unison Agreement Corp. \u2014 S.D. Cal. Remands Real-Property Case to State Court Under Forum-Defendant Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Parker v. Unison Agreement Corp.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-02903<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Forum-defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(2), waiver of remand, removal jurisdiction, real property<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Joshua Christopher Parker, a Texas resident proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint in San Diego Superior Court against three real-estate finance entities \u2014 Unison Agreement Corp., Odin New Horizon Real Estate Fund LP, and Odin New Horizon General Partner LLC. The case involves a dispute over an option-purchase agreement on real property in San Diego County, including claims for quiet title and declaratory relief.<\/p>\n

The defendants are all incorporated or organized in Delaware but have their principal places of business in California. They removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332 (Texas plaintiff vs. Delaware\/California defendants, with more than $75,000 at issue). Parker promptly moved to remand, raising several defects with the removal \u2014 most importantly that the defendants are California citizens and that the “forum-defendant rule” bars them from removing a state-court suit filed in California to federal court based on diversity.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court remanded the case to state court but denied Parker’s request for costs and fees.<\/p>\n

The forum-defendant rule appears in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(2), which provides that a case otherwise removable on diversity grounds “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” The defendants did not dispute that they were properly served California citizens; they argued only that Parker had identified no “prejudice” from a federal forum. The court rejected that argument as inconsistent with the strict-construction rule that places the burden of showing the propriety of removal on the defendants and not on the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The defendants’ second argument was that Parker had waived his right to remand through post-removal conduct: proposing pleading amendments, serving discovery requests, and serving (but not filing) a default request, all of which they claimed showed engagement with the federal court on the merits. Citing Owens v. General Dynamics, the court explained that waiver requires “affirmative conduct or unequivocal assent” so significant that remand would offend principles of fairness. Parker had moved to remand less than two weeks after removal, vigorously pursued that motion, and any apparent engagement with the merits appeared to be inadvertent “protective participation” by a pro se litigant. The court credited his explanation and declined to find waiver, distinguishing Ninth Circuit and Fifth Circuit cases involving plaintiffs who had repeatedly engaged the federal court before moving to remand.<\/p>\n

On costs and fees under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1447(c), the court declined to award any. Parker was representing himself and had not incurred attorney’s fees, and the court chose not to award costs.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n