PMI Waterford Park, LLC v. Carter

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PMI WATERFORD PARK, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-00081-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND 9 v. TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 TOMMY CARTER, et al., APPLICATION 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 13

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Dkt. No. 13, and Defendants’ in 14 forma pauperis application, Dkt. No. 2. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition 15 without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons 16 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand, and TERMINATES as moot 17 Defendants’ application. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff PMI Waterford Park, LLC filed an unlawful detainer (“UD”) action against 20 Defendants Tommy Carter and Lisa Willis on November 3, 2023 in Santa Clara County Superior 21 Court. Dkt. No. 1-1. On January 4, 2024, Defendants, who are proceeding pro se, removed the 22 case to this Court, invoking federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. On January 9, 2024, the 23 originally assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Nathanael Cousins, issued an order to show 24 cause why the case should not be remanded to state court, observing that it did not “discern any 25 basis for its jurisdiction.” Dkt. No. 5 at 2. On February 2, 2024, Defendant Lisa Willis responded 26 to Judge Cousins’ order to show cause, explaining that the case should stay in federal court 27 because (1) federal, COVID-era housing relief funds were allegedly mishandled by the 1 opposing counsel and others. Dkt. No. 12. On February 5, Plaintiff moved to remand the matter. 2 Dkt. No. 13. While pro se Defendants did not file any opposition by or after the February 20 3 deadline to respond, the Court finds that the issues posed can be resolved on the existing record. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a 6 State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be 7 removed” to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts “shall have original jurisdiction of 8 all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 9 1331. 10 For removal to be proper, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the 11 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 12 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 840–41 (1989). The 13 removal statute is also strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 14 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that 15 the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. Courts must 16 reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.; 17 see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 18 lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a single claim 21 for unlawful detainer premised solely on California law. Dkt. No. 1-1; Dkt. No. 13. And while 22 Defendants clearly intend to invoke federal question jurisdiction in their notice of removal, they 23 do not explain in the removal notice (or in their subsequent response to Judge Cousins’ order to 24 show cause) what federal question the case presents.1 To the extent Defendants seek to argue that 25 1 And while Defendants do not allege that diversity jurisdiction is a basis for removal, the Court 26 independently analyzes the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy, and concludes that because the parties are both California citizens and the amount of controversy is just $10,000, 27 28 U.S.C. §1332 does not provide an alternate basis for the Court to exercise federal jurisdiction 1 the UD is defective because management did not properly apply federal housing assistance to 2 || Defendants’ rent balance, it is well-settled that anticipated defenses or counterclaims cannot 3 establish a federal question because they do not appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. 4 || See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a 5 state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court....”); see also Ajello v. Farnung, No. 6 19-CV-06994-HSG, Dkt. No. 8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 7 |} CV 10-8203 GAF SSX, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 8 || detainer action does not arise under federal law.”). And the fact that the housing assistance at 9 || issue was apparently federally sourced does not convert this state eviction case into a federal one. 10 The Court finds that no federal question is present on the face of the complaint, and that it 11 thus does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 12 || Iv. CONCLUSION 13 The Court accordingly REMANDS the action to Santa Clara County Superior Court. 14 Defendants’ in forma pauperis application, see Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is 3 15 directed to close the case. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 17 || Dated: 3/4/2024 18 Alayped 3 |p HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28