Marina Admiralty Company v. Aaron Seager

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01007
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01007-AB-MAR Document 8 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:29

1 JS-6 2

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

9 10 MARINA ADMIRALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-1007-AB (MARx) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT AARON SEAGER, ET AL., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR 13 COSTS 14 Defendants. 15 16 I. 17 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 On December 29, 2021, Plaintiff Marina Admiralty Company (“Plaintiff”) filed 19 an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants 20 Aaron Seager (“Defendant”) and Does 1–10. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1, 5–8. 21 Plaintiff appears to assert that the defendants have failed to vacate the property after 22 being served a notice to quit and now seeks costs and damages. Id. 23 On February 14, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the 24 Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 1–3. Defendant also filed an Application 25 to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. 3. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Case 2:22-cv-01007-AB-MAR Document 8 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:30

1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. APPLICABLE LAW 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 (1994). It is this Court’s duty 7 to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 8 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 9 obvious jurisdictional issue. Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 10 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 11 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 12 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 13 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 14 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 15 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 16 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 B. ANALYSIS 18 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 1–2. Section 1441 (“section 1441”) provides, 20 in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state 21 court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 22 Section 1331 (“section 1331”) provides that federal “district courts shall have original 23 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 24 United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 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 section 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-01007-AB-MAR Document 8 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:31

1 Notice of Removal or attached exhibits; the underlying Complaint appears to allege 2 only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 3 No. CV 10-8203-GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) 4 (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); 5 IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 6 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court 7 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an 8 unlawful detainer claim). 9 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 10 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 11 (“PTFA”). Dkt. 1 at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it 12 provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 13 Nat’l. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 14 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 15 enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may not 16 be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 17 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the 18 federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 19 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful 20 detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not 21 provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint 22 does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court 23 lacks jurisdiction under section 1441. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 Cas@é 2:22-cv-01007-AB-MAR Document □ Filed 02/24/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:32

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. : (sd □ 9 | Dated: February 24, 2022 AU 10 . 1 HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE JR. United States District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28