Tenant Can't Avoid Summary Eviction Suit by Moving Case to Federal Court

What Happened: After paying only partial rent in April, Bed Bath & Beyond (BB&B) paid no rent in May, claiming that the Louisiana governor’s COVID-19 order closing “all malls, except for stores in a mall that have a direct outdoor entrance and exit that provide essential services and products” triggered the force majeure clause of the lease. The landlord contended the order didn’t cover BB&B and began a summary eviction proceeding in Louisiana state court. Because it comes from a different state, BB&B was able to move the case to federal court, where it argued, the Louisiana summary eviction process didn’t apply.

Ruling: The federal court allowed the case to go forward as a summary eviction proceeding.

Reasoning: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally apply in federal court diversity cases—that is, those pitting parties from different states. But courts will make exceptions where following federal procedures would “frustrate the purpose” of a state procedure. The court said the exception was warranted in this case. Following the federal rules “would invariably abridge Landlord’s right to have a judicial determination of its right to re-possess the property decided in a prompt manner,” the court concluded.

• Clearview v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.: 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122284