Tim Sauer v. Gloria M. Vilchez et al

Filing 6

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING by Judge Percy Anderson: 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. Please refer to the Court's order for specifics. (Terminated. Made JS-6.) (cr)

1
2
3
4
5

JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIM SAUER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-02104-PA (RAOx)

v.

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

GLORIA M. VILCHEZ and DOES 110,
Defendants.

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

I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tim Sauer (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Gloria M. Vilchez and Does 110, on or about January 13, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”) and Demurrer. Dkt. No. 1.
Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in North
Hollywood, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6.
Defendant Vilchez (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on March 16,
2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction based on congressional
enactment of Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C.

1

§ 5220. Removal at 2. The same day, Defendant filed a request to proceed in

2

forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Cir. 1992).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

26

id. § 1331.

27

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

28

and Demurrer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question
2

1

jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no

2

federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege

3

only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v.

4

Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22,

5

2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation

6

omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337

7

PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action

8

to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint

9

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

10
11

jurisdiction exists because the Complaint failed to comply with the requirements of

12

the PTFA. Removal at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action;

13

rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

U.S.C. § 1331.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3