Jinxing Investment LLC v. Mei Chen

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 12, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02849
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JINXING INVESTMENT LLC, Case No. CV 21-02849-CAS (RAOx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 MEI CHEN, et al., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendants. 16 17

18 I. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 In September 2020, Plaintiff Jinxing Investment LLC filed an unlawful 21 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Mei Chen 22 and DOES 1-50. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint 23 (“Complaint”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly occupants of real property 24 owned by Plaintiff and located in Rowland Heights, California. Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 25 4. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to vacate the property after being 26 served a notice to quit and seeks costs and damages. Id. at ¶ ¶ 9, 10, 13, 19. 27 Defendant Mei Chen (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on 28 1 April 2, 2021, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. 2 Defendant also filed an application to proceed in district court without 3 prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 7 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 8 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 9 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 10 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 11 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 12 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 13 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 14 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 15 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 16 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 17 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 18 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 19 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th 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; rather, 11 it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 12 Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 13 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 14 enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may 15 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 16 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 17 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 18 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to 19 the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged 20 violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question 21 jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 22 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1441. 24 III. 25 CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 27 Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 28 \\ 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 2 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || DATED: April 12, 2021 . davistia b. drugde CHRISTINA A, SNYDER g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28