Rajinder Walia et al v. Robert A. Boyd et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 16UR2996, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. CV 17-01739-AB (RAOx)

RAJINDER WALIA and
RASNECK WALIA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
ROBERT BOYD and
GLADYS M. ESPINOZA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs Rajinder Walia and Rasneck Walia (“Plaintiffs”) filed an unlawful

21

detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Robert

22

A. Boyd and Gladys M. Espinoza on or about November 30, 2016. Notice of

23

Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”)

24

Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located

25

in Pomona, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiffs are the owner of

26

the property. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.

27
28

Darla Brooks (“Defendant”), who claims to be the former owner of the
property and a current tenant, filed a Notice of Removal on March 3, 2017,

1

invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction based on congressional enactment

2

of Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”). Removal at 1-3, 6.

3

The same day, Defendant filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 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

16

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

17

federal 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

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

22

existence of a federal question. (Removal at 2-3, 6.) Section 1441 provides, in

23

relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state

24

court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

25

Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

26

all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

27

States.” See id. § 1331.

28

///
2

1

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint

2

makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the

3

instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent

4

from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful

5

detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203

6

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful

7

detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac

8

Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL

9

234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack

10

of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an

11

unlawful detainer claim).

12

Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question

13

jurisdiction exists because the PTFA preempted state law in this subject matter.

14

Removal at 2-3, 6. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it

15

provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank

16

Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the

17

complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing

18

[plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a “case may not be

19

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is

20

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the

21

federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

22

482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the

23

extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged

24

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

25

jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiffs’ complaint does not present a federal

26

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

27

U.S.C. § 1331.

28

///
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 Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: March 10, 2017
________________________________________

10

ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4