Shahram Saba v. Maria Sinutko

Opinion

JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || SHAHRAM SABA, Case No. CV 21-05898-PA (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 V. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 || MARIA SINUTKO, et al., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 1. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 In May 2021, Plaintiff Shahram Saba filed an unlawful detainer action in Los 51 || Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Maria Sinutko and DOES 1-10. 47 || See Dkt. No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”) at 9-1 1.! Defendants are allegedly occupants 73 of real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Van Nuys, California. Notice of Removal at 10. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to comply after being 25 served a notice to quit and deliver up possession of the property and seeks costs and 2% damages. /d. at 10-11. 27 1 For clarity, the Court refers to the page numbers inserted by the Electronic Case 28 || Filing system.

1 Defendant Heriberta Flores (hereinafter, “Defendant’’) filed a Notice of 2 | Removal on July 21, 2021, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. /d. at 3 || 2-6; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Defendant also filed an application to proceed in district court 4 || without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 5 Il. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 8 || jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 9 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 10 | 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 11 || jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 12 || Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 13 || obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 14 || F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 15 || to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 16 || when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 17 || citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 18 || bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 19 | 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 20 || jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 22 || 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Notice of Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 23 || that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 24 || federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 25 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 26 || clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 27 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 28 || is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

1 || jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 2 || plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 3 || 392, 107S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here, there is no federal question 4 || apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple 5 || unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10- 6 || 8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 7 || detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac 8 || Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 9 | 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack 10 || of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful 11 || detainer claim). 12 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 13 || exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”). 14 || Removal at 2-6. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it provides 15 || a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 16 | 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint because 17 || the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its 18 || requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may not be 19 || removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 20 || anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the 21 || federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 22 || U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent 23 || Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations 24 || of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 25 || See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal question, either on 26 || its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 27 | /// 28 |} ///

1 III. 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 application to proceed in 6 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ) 9 || DATED: July 22, 2021 Che _—_— '0 nck ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28