Mark Allen v. Farmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach Inc et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case 4 . Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. T he complaint alleges that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act ("PTFA"), Pub.L. No. 11122, Section 702, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009), provides plaintiff a federal private right of action and therefore raises a federal question. PTFA does not, however, create a federal private right of action. Therefore, it appears that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the instant action. This case is dismissed. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV13-00028-CAS

Title

MARK ALLEN v. FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF LONG
BEACH, INC., ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 6, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) MOTION TO DISMISS CASE (Docket #4, filed
January 18, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of February 25, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff Mark Allen filed the instant action against defendant
Farmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach. The complaint alleges that defendant
improperly terminated a lease agreement between the parties, and alleges claims for: (1)
violation of federal statute (Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), Pub.L. No.
111–22, § 702, 123 Stat. 1632 (2009)), (2) trespass, (3) invasion of privacy, (4)
harassment and defamation, and (5) retaliatory eviction.
On January 18, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to file a timely reply.
II.

ANALYSIS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction
only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Congress has granted federal courts
federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law
CV-13-0028 (2/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

CV13-00028-CAS

February 6, 2013

Title

MARK ALLEN v. FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF LONG
BEACH, INC., ET AL.

either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right
under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” Republican
Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Franchise
Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). “[T]he presence or
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule,
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Provincial Gov't of
Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009). “A federal
defense or counter-claim does not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.” Franchise
Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).
The complaint alleges that the PTFA provides plaintiff a federal private right of
action and therefore raises a federal question. See Dkt. No. 1. PTFA does not, however,
create a federal private right of action. Zalemba v. HSBC Bank,USA, Nat'l Ass'n, No.
10–cv–1646 BEN (BLM), 2010 WL 3894577, at *2 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 1, 2010).
Rather, “[t]he PTFA’s provisions requiring that notice be given ninety days in advance
and preventing termination of a bona fide lease unless a purchaser will occupy the unit as
a primary residence, see P.L. No. 111-22 § 702(a)(2)(A), offer [plaintiff] a federal
defense to an unlawful detainer action.” Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, CV 10-8203
GAF SSX, 2010 WL 4916578 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Therefore, it appears that this
Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the instant action.
III.

CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-13-0028 (2/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2