Andres Herrera v. Alicia Favela Herrera

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00373-DSF-RAO Document 8 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:24

JS-6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANDRES HERRERA Jr., Trustee Case No. CV 22-00373-DSF (RAO) of The Andres Herrera Trust, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 AND DENYING APPLICATION TO v. PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR ALICIA FAVELA HERRERA, et COSTS 15 al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. 20 On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff Andres Herrera Jr., Trustee of the Andres 21 Herrera Trust, filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior 22 Court against Defendants Alicia Favela Herrera and Andres Herrera, III. See Dkt. 23 No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”) at 10-12.1 Defendants are purportedly the occupants of 24 real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Covina, California. Id. at 11. Plaintiff 25 alleges that Defendants have failed to comply after being served a 30-day notice to 26 ///

27 1 For the sake of clarity, the Court refers to the page numbers inserted by the 28 Electronic Case Filing system. Case 2:22-cv-00373-DSF-RAO Document 8 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:25

1 quit and deliver up possession of the real property and seeks damages and fees. Id. 2 at 11-12. 3 Defendant Andres Herrera, III (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on 4 January 19, 2022, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2. 5 Defendant also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. 6 II. 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 9 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 10 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 11 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 12 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 13 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 14 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 15 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 16 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 17 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 18 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 19 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 20 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 21 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 because Plaintiff has filed a federal question action in 24 state court. Notice of Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that 25 a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 26 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 27 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 28 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331.

2 Case 2:22-cv-00373-DSF-RAO Document 8 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:26

1 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 2 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 4 is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 5 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 6 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 7 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here, there is no federal question 8 apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple 9 unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10- 10 8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 11 detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac 12 Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 13 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack 14 of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful 15 detainer claim). 16 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 17 exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”). 18 Removal at 2-7. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it 19 provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 20 Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the 21 complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 22 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a “case may not be 23 removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 24 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the 25 federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 26 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent 27 Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations 28 of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question

3 Case 2:22-cv-00373-DSF-RAO Document8 Filed 01/21/22 Page4of4 Page #:27

1 || jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiffs complaint does not present a federal 2 || question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 3 || U.S.C. § 1331. 4 Il. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 7 | Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 9 || formal pauperis is DENIED as moot. 11 || DATED: January 21, 2022 a) ) +" hoe Ar. ly acber? 12 Honorable Dale S. Fischer B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28