Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Elzira M Wilburn

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 29, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-08193
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY Case No.: 2:23-cv-08193-CBM-Ex FUND 2016, LLC, 12 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION (14) 14 ELZIRA M. WILBURN; EMT RECOVABLE LIVING TRUST, and 15 DOES 1 through 10,

16 Defendants.

18 19 The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, 20 LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 14 (the “Motion”).) 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint 23 against Defendant Elzira M. Wilburn in Los Angeles Superior Court . (Dkt. No. 24 1, Ex. A.) On September 29, 2023, pro se Defendant Wilburn filed a Notice of 25 Removal. (Id.) On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of 26 Removal based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 11.) 27 On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Remand, noticed for 28 hearing on November 14, 2023. (Dkt. No. 14.) No opposition was filed; instead 1 Defendant filed a “Petition for Order to Show Cause why Declaratory Judgment 2 and Preliminary Injunction Should Not Enter Against Respondents (Verified).”1 3 (Dkt. No. 23.) 4 II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW 5 “Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal 6 court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 7 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). If it appears that the district court lacks 8 subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the case 9 must be remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A federal court shall 10 have subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve questions arising under 11 federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under federal law if federal law 12 creates the cause of action or if the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on 13 the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Grable & Sons Metal 14 Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 245 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Federal question 15 jurisdiction will lie over state law claims that “really and substantially” involve a 16 dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of federal 17 law. Id. Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction is 18 present only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's 19 properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. A defense or 20 counterclaim based on federal law does not give rise to federal question 21 jurisdiction. Id. at 10. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a claim for unlawful detainer under California 24 law. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A.) Plaintiff purchased property located at 1056 West 52nd 25 Street, Los Angeles, CA 90037 by virtue of being the highest bidder at a non- 26 1 Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the Court 27 DENIES the Petition for Order to Show Cause based on lack of subject matter 28 jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 23.) 1 judicial foreclosure sale. Following the sale, Plaintiff was provided with a 2 Trustee's Deed Upon Sale which was recorded with the Los Angeles County 3 Recorder's office perfecting title to the Property. Notice was served on Defendant 4 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1162. Defendant failed to vacate 5 the premises. 6 The underlying case filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleges a statutory 7 right of an owner to recover possession of real property following its purchase at a 8 non-judicial foreclosure sale. Defendant is the occupant of the real property sold 9 at a non-judicial sale. Defendant does not cite to any Federal Law which would 10 confer this Court jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer. In her notice of 11 removal, Defendant Wilburn names additional defendants as indispensable parties: 12 Social Security Administration; Treasurer of the United States as Agent for the 13 United States Government, et al. California courts have noted that in unlawful 14 detainers “‘the right to possession alone [is] involved’”—not title to the property. 15 Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 170 (1977) (quoting Cheney v. 16 Trauzettel, 9 Cal.2d 158, 159, (1937)) (holding that in unlawful detainer actions, 17 title may only be litigated as to whether the purchaser at a trustee's sale acquired 18 the title in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1161a and the deed of trust). 19 Accordingly, this action does not arise out of federal law, and thus the Court does 20 not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and 23 remands the case back to Los Angeles Superior Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: NOVEMBER 29, 2023 27 CONSUELO B. MARSHALL 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE