Eugene Felder v. Billy Novikoff

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: 8:23-cv-00149
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:23-cv-00149-CJC-KES Document 9 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:55

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: SACV 23-00149-CJC (KESx) EUGENE FELDER, ) 13 ) ) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. ) EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND [8] 16 ) BILLY NOVIKOFF ET AL., ) 17 ) ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 25 26 On January 24, 2023, Defendant Billy Tovar removed this unlawful detainer action 27 originally filed in Superior Court, County of Orange by Plaintiff Eugene Felder, asserting 28 -1- Case 8:23-cv-00149-CJC-KES Document 9 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:56

1 federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. 1 [“Notice of 2 Removal”].) According to the Notice of Removal, a statutory basis for federal 3 jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff’s claim raises a substantial federal issue related to the 4 Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (Id. ¶ 9–11.) 5 The PTFA is a federal law that provides certain protections to tenants during 6 foreclosures, including a 90-day notice requirement. 7 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 10 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 11 if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve 13 questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under federal 14 law if federal law creates the cause of action or if the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily 15 depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Grable & Sons Metal 16 Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 245 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Federal question 17 jurisdiction will lie over state law claims that “really and substantially” involve a dispute 18 or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of federal law. Id. 19 20 The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing 21 that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal 22 statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 23 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to 24 the right of removal in the first instance.”). Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” 25 federal question jurisdiction is present only when “a federal question is presented on the 26 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 27 386, 392 (1987). A defense or counterclaim based on federal law does not give rise to 28 federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 10. Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be -2- Case 8:23-cv-00149-CJC-KES Document9 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3o0f3 Page ID #:57

1 raised by the Court sua sponte at any time, and if it appears that the district court lacks 2 subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the case must 3 ||be remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Tf the 4 ||court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 5 || dismiss the action.”’). 7 Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim for unlawful detainer under California law. 8 ||(Dkt. 1 Ex. A.) Defendants contend that the PFTA is in controversy because Plaintiff 9 ||allegedly did not comply with the 90-day notice period required by the statute prior to 10 || filing state eviction proceedings. (/d. 4 9-11.) The PFTA is at most a defense to the 11 □□ unlawful detainer action, and thus does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. See Valles 12 || v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (‘A federal law defense to a state- 13 || law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”). Nor does the straightforward 14 || federal issue presented by this defense — whether there was compliance with the 90-day 15 || period — present a “substantial federal issue.” See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. 16 || Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Accordingly, this action does not arise 17 || out of federal law, and thus the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the 18 || dispute. 19 20 || IT. CONCLUSION 21 22 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED. This action 23 ||}is hereby REMANDED to Superior Court, County of Orange. 24 25 DATED: March 2, 2023 Ko : pe 26 Of 0 CORMAC J. CARNEY 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3.