Caribbean Boy Investments LLC v. Diane Pappas
Filing
5
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the Ventura Superior Court, Case No. 56-2015-00468657-CL-UD-VTA. (remanding case to Ventura County Superior Court, Case number 56-02015-00468657-CL-UD-VTA Case Terminated) Made JS-6 (pj)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 15-5278 PA (AJWx)
Title
Caribbean Boy Investments, LLC v. Diane Pappas
Present: The
Honorable
Date
July 21, 2015
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes Kerr
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Diane Pappas (“Defendant”),
on July 14, 2015. In its Complaint, plaintiff Caribbean Boy Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges a
single state law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant, who is appearing pro se, asserts that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are 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, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the
defense of pre-emption.” Id. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (emphasis in original). The
only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,”
such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v.
First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 15-5278 PA (AJWx)
Date
Title
July 21, 2015
Caribbean Boy Investments, LLC v. Diane Pappas
Here, the underlying Complaint contains only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Defendant alleges that removal is proper because “Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint based on
a defective notice, i.e. the Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises failed to comply with the Tenants at
Foreclosure Act.” The Answer does not appear to include any reference to this statute. Regardless, the
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”) does not create a private right of action; rather, it
provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n , 2013
WL 3614465, *1 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint because the PTFA “does not
create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). Therefore, Defendant’s
allegations do not provide a proper basis for removal, as neither a federal defense nor an actual or
anticipated federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.
49, 61-62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Additionally, because the Complaint
alleges only a state law claim for unlawful detainer, it does not present a claim “arising under” federal
law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing that federal
question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this
action is hereby remanded to the Ventura Superior Court, Case No. 56-2015-00468657-CL-UD-VTA.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JS-6
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
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?