Guild Mortgage Company v. William R Brickner et al
Filing
8
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER RE REMAND by Judge Stephen V. Wilson For the reasons put forward in this Order, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and REMANDS it to state court for further proceedings. (remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court North District Antelope Valley Courthouse, Case number 12U02510) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter Remand to State Court) (pj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:13-cv-159-SVW-AGR
Date
Title
March 13, 2013
Guild Mortgage co. v. William R. Brickner, et al.
JS-6
Present: The Honorable
STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul M. Cruz
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A
N/A
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS ORDER Re REMAND
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff Guild Mortgage Company, Inc., brought its unlawful detainer
action against Defendant William Brickner (proceeding pro se) in California state court. On January 9,
2013, Defendant filed his notice of removal in this Court, asserting that the Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), P.L. No. 111-22 (2009), confers jurisdiction upon this Court. This
Court held two status conferences on this matter—one on March 4, 2013, and the other on March 11,
2013. Defendant did not appear at either. For the reasons below, the Court sua sponte finds that it does
not have subject matter jurisdiction and remands this matter to California state court. See Snell v.
Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] court may raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .”).
II. DISCUSSION
Removal statutes are “strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “A defendant seeking removal has the burden to
establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.” Id. Moreover, in
assessing whether a plaintiff’s claims were properly removable under § 1441(c), a court “look[s] to the
plaintiff’s pleadings.” Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663-4 (9th Cir. 1988).
Defendant argues that this Court nonetheless has jurisdiction under the artful pleading doctrine.
This “corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule” provides that “although the plaintiff is master of his
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PMC
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:13-cv-159-SVW-AGR
Date
Title
March 13, 2013
Guild Mortgage co. v. William R. Brickner, et al.
own pleadings, he may not avoid federal jurisdiction by omitting from the complaint allegations of
federal law that are essential to the establishment of his claim.” Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin.
Services, Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration
omitted). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that courts should use this doctrine “only in limited
circumstances as it raises difficulty issues of state and federal relationships and often yields
unsatisfactory results.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To that end, courts have
only used the artful pleading doctrine to find federal subject matter jurisdiction in either 1) complete
preemption cases or 2) substantial federal question cases. Id. “Substantial federal question cases” are
those “where the claim is necessarily federal in character” or “where the right to relief depends on the
resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question.” Id. at 1041-42 (internal citations omitted).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action “attempts to state a cause of action
in PTFA ejectment.” Defendant is wrong—the PTFA does not give landlords a right of ejectment. The
PTFA required “any immediate successor in interest” to a foreclosed property to allow “bona fide
tenant[s]” of the property to “occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease,
except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale” after giving a
tenant 90 days notice. P.L. No. 112-22 § 702(a)(2). The statute provides protections to tenants in
unlawful detainers, but did not give landlords—including Plaintiff—a separate cause of action to eject
tenants. To the contrary, an unlawful detainer claim, like the one asserted by Plaintiff in state court, is
based “strictly upon California law.” Bank of New York Mellon v. Lee, No. CV 12-3669 SJO SHX,
2012 WL 1977311, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2012). Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of
demonstrating that Plaintiff’s cause of action is “necessarily federal in character.”
To the extent Plaintiff argues that the PTFA provides him a federal defense, that argument is
irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes. “A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer
jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the
plaintiff's complaint.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Franchise
Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983)). Several courts in
this district have held that a defense under the PTFA does not confer federal courts with subject matter
jurisdiction. See Lee, 2012 WL 1977311, at *2 (“Defendant's argument that the PTFA preempted
California law as to Plaintiff's claims against residential tenants of foreclosed landlords is best
characterized as a federal defense or a potential counter-claim, neither of which is considered when
determining federal question jurisdiction.”); Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Brooks, No. CV 12-00109 MMM
FFM, 2012 WL 773073, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (same); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, CV
10-8203 GAF SSX, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (same); see also Aurora Loan
Services, LLC v. Montoya, 2:11-CV-2485-MCE-KJN, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9,
2011) (same).
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PMC
Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:13-cv-159-SVW-AGR
Date
Title
March 13, 2013
Guild Mortgage co. v. William R. Brickner, et al.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons put forward in this Order, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and REMANDS it to state court for further proceedings.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PMC
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?