Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
*****
Janice Inman is Editor-in-Chief of Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy.
|ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.