Skip to main content

Search

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.6 Supplemental or Pendent Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Federal housing cases will often raise the issue of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction due to the presence of multiple claims and parties. Supplemental jurisdiction refers to the federal courts’ authority to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim, even though the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. Before 1990, when the supplemental jurisdiction statute was codified, these jurisdictional questions were governed by U.S.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.2 General Removal—28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b)

Under Section 1441, defendants can remove from the state to the federal courts civil actions that are within the federal courts’ original jurisdiction.254 These actions include (1) cases containing claims that “arise under” federal law255 and (2) cases founded upon diversity, with none of the defendants being citizens of the forum state.256 As with jurisdiction under Section 1331, for claims to “arise under” federal law, there must be a substantial

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.4 Federal Officer Removal—28 U.S.C. § 1442

Federal agencies and officers may remove cases under Section 1442 that other defendants could not under Section 1441.261 Under Section 1442, federal officials may remove to the federal courts actions brought against them in state courts for “any act under color of [their federal] office.”262 These actions include state court lawsuits against federal agencies and individuals who are acting in the course of their employment by or on behalf of the federal government or under the authority of a fede

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.5.7.5 Removal Jurisdiction Applicability in Housing Cases.

Common housing cases in which removal jurisdiction may arise include: (1) state court actions in which the plaintiff brings federal housing claims against non-federal defendants; (2) state court eviction actions in which the tenant is the defendant; and (3) state court actions that include claims against a federal party, such as HUD, in addition to state claims against non-federal defendants, such as a PHA.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.1 Introduction

Policies designed to prevent conflict between federal and state courts can bear on whether the federal court will assume jurisdiction. This potential conflict is most acute in the context of a state court eviction case that tenants and advocates want to enjoin in federal court, but the federal court may have to abstain because it lacks the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the claim.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.2.2 Avoiding Younger Abstention

Keeping in mind the policy considerations behind Younger, advocates can rely on any of the following factors to avoid the doctrine’s application as a bar to a federal action: (1) an absence of an important state interest at issue; (2) a demonstration that state procedures or remedies are inadequate to raise or redress federal claims; and (3) a demonstration that the tenant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of federal intervention.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.2.3 Absence of important state interest

Under Sprint, a federal court should not abstain unless there are exceptional circumstances implicating important state interests.324 Although it is unclear whether the state litigation must be state-initiated,325 it nevertheless seems critical to characterize the litigation as a private dispute or one focused on the federal interests at stake rather than a dispute involving an important state interest.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.7 Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

In certain cases, especially those involving eviction judgments, advocates will also need to consider the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.362 Under this doctrine, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that amount to review of or collateral attack on a state court civil judgment.363 The doctrine is based on the Supreme Court’s sole jurisdiction to decide constitutional or other federal claims arising from final judgments of state courts, and only after appellate review in

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.6.8.1 Applicability

Closely related to abstention issues is the application of the federal Anti-Injunction Act.380 The statute prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against an ongoing state court proceeding, absent certain express exceptions.381 Significantly, the statute does not apply where the federal court assumes jurisdiction prior to the state court.382 Thus, for instance, state court eviction actions can often be enjoined if the federal cas

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.7.1 Introduction

When suing the United States, HUD, the Secretary of HUD, his or her subordinates, or a state government, claimants should be aware that the defendant may allege that the suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.406 To avoid dismissal on grounds of federal or state sovereign immunity, plaintiffs must bring claims that are exceptions to the sovereign immunity doctrine.

HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (The Green Book): 14.8.2 Deciding Whether to Bring a Class Action

There are many advantages associated with class actions. For example, these types of cases can generate important publicity for an organization or community, permit much broader discovery than individual cases, and produce a strong litigation posture that can often induce favorable settlements. However, litigating class actions can be more time consuming and more costly because of extended discovery, notice problems, and other issues. This section addresses preliminary issues concerning strategy that advocates face when deciding whether to seek class certification.