460 South Lake Avenue, Ltd. v. Laurent Appleton

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 26, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-10575
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 460 S. LAKE AVENUE, LTD., Case No. CV 19-10575-CAS (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 LAURENT APPLETON, et al., PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR 15 Defendants. COSTS 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff 460 S. Lake Avenue, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer 20 action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Laurent Appleton 21 and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached 22 Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly occupants of real 23 property owned by Plaintiff and located in Burbank, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. 24 Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action seeking forfeiture of the rental 25 agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 26 Defendant Appleton filed a Notice of Removal on December 13, 2019, 27 invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. 28 1 Defendant also filed a request to proceed without prepayment of fees or 2 costs. Dkt. No. 3. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 6 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 8 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 9 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 10 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 11 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 12 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an 13 opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, 14 it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting 15 internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to 16 federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. 17 Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” 18 against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th 19 Cir. 1992). 20 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 22 that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 23 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 24 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 25 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331. 26 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 27 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 28 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 1 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 2 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 3 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 4 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 5 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 7 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 8 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 9 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 10 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 11 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. 12 U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of 13 the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 14 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that 15 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . 16 even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both 17 parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” 18 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 19 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer 20 action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide 21 a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does 22 not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks 23 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 4 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s request to proceed without 6 || prepayment of fees or costs 1s DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | DATED: December 26, 2019 , ff Ahn toe Uh, bnyhe CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28