Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Case Notes

By Janice Inman
November 01, 2019

Defense Based on Federal Law Cannot Confer Federal Jurisdiction

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas recently remanded a case to state court that had been removed there by a defendant tenant asserting violation of a federal law justified its not paying rent in accordance with its commercial lease, as a defense alone cannot confer jurisdiction on a federal court. Family Video Movie Club, Inc. v. Lovejoy Flower & Gift Shop, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127520 (D. Kansas 7/31/19).

Plaintiff Family Video Movie Club Inc. (Family Video) leased a commercial property in Texas to defendant Lovejoy Flower and Gift Shop (Lovejoy). Family Video claimed Lovejoy was in default under the lease and sought to recover the premises through a state-law forcible detainer cause of action. Lovejoy then sought removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming that the federal court had jurisdiction based on the fact that Family Video was illegally selling CBD products in violation of federal law, and that these illegal sales adversely affected tenant Lovejoy's business. Lovejoy alleged that this harm justified its failure to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the lease, and that because the sale of CBD is illegal under federal law, the case presented a federal question for the court.

The District Court noted that when a petition contains no federal questions, removal of a case is not proper even if a federal defense will be made. See, Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987). "Plaintiff's state court petition does not contain  a reference to federal law," stated the court here. "To the contrary, the petition is based solely on a Texas state cause of action. Defendant claims that the court has federal jurisdiction because plaintiff is 'in violation of the commercial lease agreement by illegally selling CBD products, adversely affecting the Defendant['s] business, according to 21 U.S.C. section 811 and 812.' (Doc. 1-2, at 2.) But at most, defendant's reference to these federal statutes is either a counterclaim or a defense to why defendant should not pay plaintiff under the lease or be evicted." Since neither a counterclaim nor a defense can confer jurisdiction on a federal court, the District Court remanded the cause of action to the Texas Justice Court.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.