Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC v. Master

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 AVALON MORRISON PARK Case No. 21-cv-09914-BLF APARTMENTS, LLC, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 RECOMMENDATION; REMANDING v. CASE TO STATE COURT FOR LACK 10 OF SUBJECT MATTER ARTHUR MASTER, et al., JURISDICTION 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 9] 12 13 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Judge Cousins to remand the above- 14 captioned case to California state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 9. This is an unlawful detainer action brought by Avalon 16 Morrison Park Apartments, LLC (“Avalon”) against Defendants Arthur Master and Dejan 17 Kuzmanovic. Avalon filed this action in Santa Clara Superior Court on December 1, 2021, bringing 18 a single claim for unlawful detainer under California state law. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 8–14. 19 Avalon alleges that Defendants have maintained possession of property they were renting from 20 Avalon, the owner, after Avalon terminated the tenancy for at-fault just cause and provided 21 Defendants a 3-day nuisance notice. See id. at 11. Defendants removed the action to federal court 22 on December 22, 2021, arguing there is federal question jurisdiction under the artful pleading 23 doctrine because the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) preempts 24 California eviction law since Avalon was granted the Act’s forbearance of federally backed 25 mortgage payments. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 26 The case was initially assigned to Judge Cousins, who filed an Order to Show Cause on 27 January 3, 2022 directing Defendants to file a response by January 18, 2022 explaining why this 1 jurisdiction. See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 8. Defendants failed to file a response, and the 2 deadline for filing a response has passed. See id. On January 24, 2022, Judge Cousins reassigned 3 the above-captioned case to this Court, recommending that it be remanded to Santa Clara Superior 4 Court due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See R&R, ECF No. 9. Defendants failed to file 5 an objection to Judge Cousins’s Recommendation, and the deadline to file an objection has passed. 6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Judge Cousins recommends that the Court remand this action to California 7 state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because (1) no diversity of citizenship is shown, 8 so this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction and (2) the sole claim in the Complaint is for 9 unlawful detainer under state law and there does not appear to be a substantial question of federal 10 law implicated, so this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. See R&R, ECF No. 9 at 2. 11 A defendant may remove to federal court any civil action over which “the district courts of 12 the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). For diversity of citizenship, the 13 complaint must allege that the matter in controversy is between citizens of different states and the 14 amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Federal question jurisdiction 15 exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 16 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 17 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 18 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 19 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citation omitted). “[An] exception to the well-pleaded- 20 complaint rule is referred to as the ‘artful-pleading doctrine.’” See City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 21 969 F.3d 895, 905 (9th Cir. 2020). “This doctrine allows removal where federal law completely 22 preempts a plaintiff’s state-law claim.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 23 Having reviewed Judge Cousins’s Report and Recommendation de novo, along with the 24 record in this case, the Court finds that the Report is well-reasoned and correct in every respect, and 25 ADOPTS the Recommendation in its entirety. The face of the Complaint does not present a federal 26 question, and Defendants have failed to show that the artful pleading doctrine applies, despite 27 multiple opportunities to do so. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“a case may not be removed to 1 (JPRx), 2021 WL 3125515, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2021) (“It is Defendant's burden to show that 2 || Plaintiff's Complaint is ‘based upon [a] federal statute,’ not that a federal statute or alleged 3 constitutional violation is ‘merely an anticipated defense.’”) (citing Menhard v. Tracy, No. 4 20-cv—08670-NC, 2020 WL 8513086, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020)). Defendants argue that 5 || they are “informed and believe” that the CARES Act preempts state law here because of Avalon’s 6 || enjoyment of the forbearance of federally backed mortgage payments, but Defendants fail to allege 7 basic facts, including the timeline of the forbearance. See CARES Act § 4023(d) (renter protections 8 || apply “for the duration of the forbearance”); Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Multiple district courts 9 in the Ninth Circuit have remanded unlawful detainer actions for lack of federal jurisdiction in light 10 of similar facts and arguments. See, e.g., Koy-Ghadoush, 2021 WL 3125515, at *1; Nahouraii v. 11 Weinerman, No. 2:21—cv—00090-TLN-JDP, 2021 WL 237259, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021); 12 || Love v. White, No. 2:21-CV—00045-TLN-AC, 2021 WL 606256, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021); 13 Menhardt, 2020 WL 8513086, at *2. Further, Defendants have failed on multiple occasions to argue 14 || for their position, despite multiple orders from Judge Cousins. See Order to Show Cause, 3 15 || ECF No. 8; R&R, ECF No. 9. a 16 Based on the above reasoning, the Court ADOPTS Judge Cousins’s Report and 3 17 Recommendation after de novo review and REMANDS this case to Santa Clara Superior Court.

19 || Dated: February 8, 2022 kom Lh han ty) 20 (LAMAN □ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28