Jinxing Investments LLC v. Cortez-Silva

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JINXING INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-7163-RGK (MARx) Plaintiff, v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO BETTY CORTEZ-SILVA, ET AL., PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR Defendants.

I. In September 2020,1 Plaintiff Jinxing Investments LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Betty Cortez-Silva and Does 1–10. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. Defendant Darryl Williams (“Defendant”), whose instant action is now before the Court, does not appear to be named as a defendant anywhere on the unlawful detainer action. Dkt. 1 at 8–11. However, Defendant appears to reside at the address Plaintiff listed in their unlawful detainer action, “13114 Cordary Ave Hawthorne CA 902540 (County of Los Angeles)[.]” See id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have failed to vacate

1 The Notice of Removal lists December 30, 2020 as the date Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer the property after being served a notice to quit and now seeks costs and damages. Id. at 8–11. On September 8, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 1–3. Defendant also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. 2. II. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203-GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”). Dkt. 1 at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. /// /// Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. Dated: September 15, 2021 d “4 Reece a HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER United States District Judge