Property Management Associates v. Chrisshana Cameron

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, Case No. CV 20-00529-ODW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS CHRISSHANA CAMERON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Property Management Associates (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 20 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Chrisshana 21 Cameron 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 located in Hawthorne, California. Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff is allegedly the 24 landlord of the property. Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action seeking 25 forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. 26 Id. at ¶ 17. 27 /// 28 1 Defendant Cameron filed a Notice of Removal on January 17, 2020, invoking 2 the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-7. 3 Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 7 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 8 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 9 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 10 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 11 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 12 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 13 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 14 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 15 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 16 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 17 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 18 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 19 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a 22 defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 23 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal “district 24 courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 25 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331. 26 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 27 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 28 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 1 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 2 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 3 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 4 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 5 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 7 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 8 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 9 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 10 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 11 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. 12 Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the 13 complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 14 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that 15 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even 16 if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties 17 concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. 18 v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, 19 to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on 20 alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal 21 question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 22 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1441. 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: February 21, 2020 Gage 10 OTISD.WRIGHTH 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28