Shahram Saba v. Maria Sinutko

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 SHAHRAM SABA, Case No. 2:21-cv-7947-SB (MARx) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 13 MARIA SINUTKO, ET AL., PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR 14 COSTS Defendant(s). 15 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff Shahram Saba (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 20 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Maria 21 Sinutko and “Does 1 to 10”. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 14. Defendant Maria 22 Gonzalez (“Defendant”), whose instant action is now before the Court, does not 23 appear to be named as a defendant anywhere on the unlawful detainer action. Dkt. 1 24 at 12–14. However, Defendant appears to be one of Plaintiff’s tenants at the address 25 Plaintiff listed in their unlawful detainer action, “3809 Cody Road,; Sherman Oaks, 26 CA 91403[.]” See id. at 1, 8, 10–14. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have failed to 27 vacate the property after being served a notice to quit and now seeks costs and 1 On October 5, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the 2 Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2–8. Defendant also filed an Application 3 to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. 3. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 A. APPLICABLE LAW 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 (1994). It is this Court’s duty 10 always to examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 11 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 12 obvious jurisdictional issue. 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 jurisdiction 19 exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 B. ANALYSIS 21 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 1–2. Section 1441 (“section 1441”) provides, 23 in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state 24 court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 25 Section 1331 (“section 1331”) provides that federal “district courts shall have original 26 jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 27 United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 1 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 2 matter under section 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 3 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 4 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203-GAF (SSx), 2010 5 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 6 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 7 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 8 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where 9 plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 10 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 11 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 12 (“PTFA”). Dkt. 1 at 3–7. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, 13 it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 14 Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 15 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 16 enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may 17 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 18 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 19 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 20 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the 21 unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses 22 do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s 23 complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the 24 Court lacks jurisdiction under section 1441. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Ill. 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. 8 ? | Dated: October 8, 2021 (PES. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jn. 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28