Xiao v. Forshey

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 8, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-02538
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 XIAOQING XIAO, Case No. 21-cv-02538-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND; VACATING HEARING 10 RANDALL FORSHEY, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Xiaoqing Xiao's Motion to Remand, filed April 30, 2021. 14 Defendants Randall Forshey and Sharon Forshey have not filed opposition.1 Having 15 read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the 16 matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 11, 2021, 17 and rules as follows. 18 In the above-titled action, plaintiff asserts a single claim, titled "Unlawful Detainer." 19 On April 7, 2021, defendants filed a Notice of Removal, asserting the action is one 20 "arising under federal law." (See Notice of Removal ¶ 3.) By the instant motion, plaintiff 21 seeks an order remanding the action. 22 In their Notice of Removal, defendants, citing to "the 'Protecting Tenants at 23 Foreclosure Act of 2009' ["PTFA"], 12 U.S.C. § 5201," argue a federal question exists. 24 (See id. ¶ 7.) "As numerous other district courts in this Circuit have concluded," however, 25 the PFTA "does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction." See Bay Home Preservation 26

27 1Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, any opposition was due "not 1 Service v. Nguyen, 2015 WL 1262144, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2015) (collecting 2 || cases). In particular, although "the PTFA may provide a defense" to a state unlawful 3 || detainer action, see id., a "federal defense to a state-law claim does not confer 4 || jurisdiction on a federal court," see Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 5 || 2005). Consequently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's unlawful 6 || detainer action. 7 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to remand is hereby GRANTED, and the instant 8 || action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for 9 || the County of Alameda. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: June 8, 2021 5 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 13 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28