Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Ada Zulema Ortiz et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING THIS ACTION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court, sua sponte, remands this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 15UN3994, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

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

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

2:16-cv-00232-CAS(AJWx)

Title

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. v. ADA ZULEMA
ORTIZ, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 10, 2016

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:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING THIS ACTION TO
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2015, following a non-judicial foreclosure sale, plaintiff Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (“Freddie Mac”) filed an unlawful detainer action (the
“underlying unlawful detainer action”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against
pro se defendant Ada Zulema Ortiz (“defendant”), and Does 1-10, inclusive. Dkt. 1. On
December 18, 2015, defendant, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a notice of
removal, two brief paragraphs in length, asserting federal question jurisdiction. Id. In
her notice of removal, defendant contends that federal questions exist because Freddie
Mac’s conduct, “including predatory lending and usury,” constitutes a violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. (“RICO”).
See Notice of Removal at 2. The Court, sua sponte, remands this case to the Los Angeles
Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Removal is proper where the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction
over an action filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In general, a federal district
court has subject matter jurisdiction where a case presents a claim arising under federal
law (“federal question jurisdiction”), or where the plaintiffs and defendants are residents
of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (“diversity
jurisdiction”). See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Galindo, No. CV 10–01893,
2011 WL 662324, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb.11, 2011) (explaining the two types of jurisdiction).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

2:16-cv-00232-CAS(AJWx)

February 10, 2016

Title

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. v. ADA ZULEMA
ORTIZ, ET AL.

Courts recognize a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction and place the
burden on the removing defendant to demonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “If at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court may remand the matter either on
motion by a party or acting sua sponte. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,
1195 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Maniar v. F.D.I.C., 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“[T]he term ‘motion to remand’ in § 1447(c) includes a district court’s sua sponte
remand”).
III.

DISCUSSION

Whether a case arises under federal law is generally determined by the wellpleaded complaint rule. “[A] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the
United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”
Cal. Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538, 542 (9th
Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). It is well recognized that unlawful detainer actions are
pure matters of state law and “are strictly within the province of state court.” McGee v.
Seagraves, 2006 WL 2014142, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2006); see also Deutsche Bank
Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1,
2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that
is purely a matter of state law.”); Federal Nat’l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, No. 1:11-cv01225, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer
actions are strictly within the province of state court.”). Furthermore, even if defendant
was to assert counterclaims against plaintiff Freddie Mac, any such assertion still would
not create federal subject matter jurisdiction, as a defendant cannot create federal subject
matter jurisdiction by attempting to add federal claims or anticipated federal defenses to a
notice of removal. See Benefit Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003).
Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this post-foreclosure
unlawful detainer action.
Finally, although defendant has not raised the issue in her notice of removal, the
Court notes that some courts have considered the question of whether, under a broad
reading of Freddie Mac’s charter, all federal courts have original jurisdiction over any
suit involving the federal agency. See 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f) (“[A]ll civil actions to which
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

2:16-cv-00232-CAS(AJWx)

February 10, 2016

Title

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. v. ADA ZULEMA
ORTIZ, ET AL.

[Freddie Mac] is a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and
the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such actions,
without regard to amount or value.”). However, this Court is unaware of any instance in
which a federal court has actually exercised jurisdiction following a defendant’s attempt
to remove a state court unlawful detainer action wherein Freddie Mac was the plaintiff.
Indeed, it appears that all other district courts to have considered the issue under
similar circumstances have declined to exercise jurisdiction. See, e.g. Federal Home
Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Gantz, No. 13-1490 2013 WL 5202393 *2 (D. Minn. Sep. 12,
2013), aff'd, 568 F. App'x 482 (8th Cir. 2014) (remanding plaintiff Freddie Mac’s
unlawful detainer action following defendant’s attempt to remove the action, noting that a
“post-foreclosure eviction action is a summary proceeding created by Minnesota state law
[citation], the enforcement of which is tasked to Minnesota law enforcement personnel”);
Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp v. Shaffer, 72 F.Supp.3d 1265, 1272 (N.D. Ala. 2014)
(remanding plaintiff Freddie Mac’s unlawful-detainer action, despite defendant’s
assertion of a counterclaim and Freddie Mac’s attempt to remove the action, because
“Congress did not mean to expand the availability of a federal forum for Freddie Mac
beyond the arguably constitutional confines of Article III or to take Freddie Mac's right to
remove to absurd lengths”); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Garcia, No.
1:11-CV-00711 AWI, 2011 WL 2680523, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2011) (remanding
plaintiff Freddie Mac’s unlawful detainer action following pro se defendant’s attempt to
remove the action). This Court finds it appropriate to do the same.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the
Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3