U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Myron Hale

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 3, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07947
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. BANK TRUST N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER Case No. CV 20-07947-JAK (RAOx) 12 PARTICIPATION TRUST, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 14 v. 15 MYRON HALE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 I. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust 21 (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court 22 against Defendants Myron Hale, Sylvia Parker, and Does 1 to 6 (“Defendants”). 23 Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. 24 Defendants are allegedly occupants of real property (“property”) owned by Plaintiff 25 and located in Los Angeles, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3-4, 8. Plaintiff filed the 26 unlawful detainer action seeking restitution and possession of property, monetary 27 damages, and costs. Id. at 3. 28 /// 1 Defendant Myron Hale (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on August 2 28, 2020, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. 3 Defendant also submitted 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. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 22 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 23 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 24 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 25 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 26 id. § 1331. 27 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 28 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 1 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of 2 || the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of 3 || action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4 || 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not 5 || arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 6 || Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7 | 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 8 || where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 9 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 10 || jurisdiction exists based on the defense that Plaintiff is in violation of 12 U.S.C. 11 || § 3708. Removal at 2-3. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal 12 || court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 13 || plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the 14 || only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. 15 |} Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to 16 || the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those 17 || defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because 18 || Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as 19 || artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 20 III. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 23 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: September 3, 2020 26 ¢ Wns lV \ JOHNA. KRONSTADT 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE