LA Flower Street Apartments, LP v. Urioste

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01831
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LA FLOWER STREET APARTMENTS, LP, Case No. CV 20-01831-SVW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS URIOSTE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff LA Flower Street Apartments, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 20 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Luis 21 Urioste and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and 22 Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly occupants of 23 real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Los Angeles, California. 24 Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action seeking forfeiture of the 25 rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 26 Defendant Urioste filed a Notice of Removal on February 26, 2020, invoking 27 the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. 28 1 Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3. 2 II. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 5 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 6 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 7 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 8 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 9 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 10 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 11 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 12 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 13 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 14 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 15 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 16 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 17 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 20 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 21 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 22 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 23 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 24 id. § 1331. 25 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 26 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 27 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 28 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 1 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 2 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 3 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 4 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 6 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 7 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 8 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 9 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-7. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 10 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. 11 Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the 12 complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 13 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that 14 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even 15 if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties 16 concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. 17 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, 18 to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on 19 alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal 20 question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 21 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 22 U.S.C. § 1441. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 TIL. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 4 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s request to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | DATED: _March 4, 2020 SSG, SHEA, STEPHEN WILSON’ 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28