Lotus Property Services, Inc. v. Vispy Hosi Panthaki et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez Remanding case to Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, Case number 16P05913. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 2/13/17) (lom)

1
2
3
4
5
6

~~~ v

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOTUS PROPERTY SERVICES,
INC.,

Case No. CV 17-00895-PSG(RAOx)

12

Plaintiff,
13

v.
14
15
16 '

VISPY HOSI PANTHAKI,aka Vispi
Hosi Panthaki, Does 1 to 10, inclusive,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

Defendants.

17
18

I
.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Lotus Property Services, Inc.("Plaintiff') filed an unlawful detainer

21

action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Vispy Hosi Panthaki and

22

Does 1 to 10("Defendants")on or about December 30, 2016. Notice of Removal

"Removal")&Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer("Compl.") and
23 (
24

Answer, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly unauthorized subtenants of real

25

property' located in Arcadia, California ("the property"). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff

2
6

is the agent for the owner ofthe property. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.

27
28

Defendant Panthaki filed a Notice of Removal on February 3, 2017, invoking
the Court's federal question jurisdiction, asserting that Defendant's Answer to the

1

Complaint raises issues under federal law. Removal at 2. The same day, Defendant

2

Panthaki filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt.

3

No. 2.

4 '

II.

5 '

DISCUSSION

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

7

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

8

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

9

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court's duty always to examine its own subject

10

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

11

163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

12

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc.,

13

336 F.3d 982,985 (9th Cir. 2003)("While a party is entitled to notice and an

14

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

15

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")(omitting

[ 1 internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to
[
17

f
ederal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

18

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925,927(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a "strong presumption"

19

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567(9th

20

Cir. 1992).

21

As noted above, Defendant Panthaki asserts that this Court has subject matter

22

jurisdiction due to the existence of a federal question. (Removal at 1, 7-8.) Section

23

1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil

24

action in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28

25

U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal "district courts shall have

2
6

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

27

treaties of the United States." See id. § 1331.

28

/
//
2

1

Here, the Court's review of the Notice of Removal and the attached

2

Complaint and Answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question

3

jurisdiction over the instant matter. Plaintiff could not have brought this action in

4

f
ederal court, in that Plaintiff does not allege facts supplying federal question

5

jurisdiction, and therefore, removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);

6

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d

7 ' 318 (1987) ("Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in
8 1 f
ederal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.") (footnote
9
10

omitted).
First, there is no federal question apparent on the face of Plaintiff's

11

complaint, which alleges only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See

12

Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578,

13

*2(C.D.CaI. Nov. 22, 2010)
("An unlawful detainer action does not arise under

14

f
ederal law.")(citation omitted);IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.

15

EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx),2010 WL 234828, at *2(C.D.CaI. Jan. 13, 2010)

16 (
remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where
17
18

plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that federal question

19

jurisdiction exists because Defendant's Answer raises issues of federal law.

2
0

Removal at 2. It is well settled that a "case may not be removed to federal court on

21

the basis of a federal defense ...even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's

22

complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

23

question truly at issue." Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus,to

2 I the extent Defendant's defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged
4
25

violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question

2
6

jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal

27

question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28

28

U.S.C. § 1331.
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED:

10

PHILIP S.~G T~ERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

~ ~3
/~7

Presented by:

13
14
15

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
2
0
21
2
2
23
24
25
2
6
27
28
4