Jinxing Investments LLC v. Cortez-Silva

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 15, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-07163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 JINXING INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-7163-RGK (MARx) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 13 BETTY CORTEZ-SILVA, ET AL., PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR 14 COSTS Defendants. 15

16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 In September 2020,1 Plaintiff Jinxing Investments LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an 20 unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants 21 Betty Cortez-Silva and Does 1–10. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. Defendant Darryl 22 Williams (“Defendant”), whose instant action is now before the Court, does not 23 appear to be named as a defendant anywhere on the unlawful detainer action. Dkt. 1 24 at 8–11. However, Defendant appears to reside at the address Plaintiff listed in their 25 unlawful detainer action, “13114 Cordary Ave Hawthorne CA 902540 (County of Los 26 Angeles)[.]” See id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have failed to vacate

27 1 The Notice of Removal lists December 30, 2020 as the date Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer 1 the property after being served a notice to quit and now seeks costs and damages. Id. 2 at 8–11. 3 On September 8, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the 4 Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 1–3. 5 Defendant also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without 6 Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. 2. 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 10 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 11 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty 12 always to examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 13 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 14 obvious jurisdictional issue. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 15 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 16 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 17 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 18 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 19 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 20 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 21 exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 24 that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 25 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 26 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 27 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 2 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 3 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 4 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 5 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203-GAF (SSx), 2010 6 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 7 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 8 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 9 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where 10 plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 11 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 12 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 13 (“PTFA”). Dkt. 1 at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it 14 provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 15 Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 16 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 17 enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may 18 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 19 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 20 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 21 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the 22 unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses 23 do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s 24 complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the 25 Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 26 /// 27 /// 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the 4 | Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application to Proceed in 6 | District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | Dated: September 15, 2021 d “4 Reece a 10 1 HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28