B. Lance Miller v. Christopher Taylor et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT by Judge Percy Anderson; remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17U01692, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for further details) (mrgo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-02433 PA (AFMx)
Title

JS-6

Date: April 5, 2017

B. Lance Miller dba Westhill Management Company v. Christopher Taylor and
Terrance Corey Taylor; and Does 1 to 10

Present: The Honorable Percy Anderson, U.S District Judge
Valencia R. Vallery
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
N/A

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT

On February 15, 2017, B. Lance Miller dba Westhill Management Company (“Plaintiff”)
instituted an unlawful detainer proceeding against Christopher Taylor and Terrance Corey Taylor and
Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”) in state court. Defendants have allegedly continued in unlawful
possession of the property located at 6770 Springpark Avenue, Apt. 103, Los Angeles, CA 90056 (the
“Property”) that is owned and managed by plaintiff. Defendants allegedly entered into a one-year term
of the Property on November 11, 2003, with rent at $1,500 per month and increased to $2,075 per
month. (Complaint ¶ 6). At the time of the 3-day notice to quit, the rent due by Defendants was
allegedly $2,075.00. Plaintiff estimates the fair rental value of the property as $69.16 per day. Plaintiff
filed his unlawful detainer complaint in state court after Defendants failed to comply with the notice to
quit. Defendant Christopher Taylor removed the action to this Court on March 29, 2017. Defendant
asserts federal question jurisdiction in this Court based on (1) “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of
2009” (Notice of Removal, ¶ 7), and (2) “Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend on the determination
of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Notice of Removal, ¶ 9.) Diversity
jurisdiction is not alleged.
Federal courts are courts 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 (1994). It is this Court’s duty to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction,
see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if
there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d
982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a
court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-02433 PA (AFMx)
Title

Date: April 5, 2017

B. Lance Miller dba Westhill Management Company v. Christopher Taylor and
Terrance Corey Taylor; and Does 1 to 10

from state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland,
792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s
Complaint here contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. There is no
federal question jurisdiction even if Defendants have alleged an actual or anticipated federal defense to
the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93; Vaden
v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there
is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.
Defendant’s assertion of the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009” does not create
federal question jurisdiction. First, that statute expired at the end of 2014. See P.L. 111-22, section
704, as extended by section 1484 of P.L. 111-203. (“This title, and any amendments made by this title
are repealed, and the requirements under this title shall terminate, on December 31, 2014.”) Second,
even if that statute gave rise to a defense against Plaintiff’s foreclosure action, this does not provide the
Court with a basis to assert federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. See,
e.g., Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Kennedy, 2012 WL 1378671, *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012) (finding
no federal question jurisdiction over a state law unlawful detainer action where the notice of removal
raised the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Brooks, 2012
WL 773073, *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (same); Westcom Credit Union, v. Dudley, 2010 WL
4916578, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)(same). The 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,
722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (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”). Accordingly,
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists.
The notice of removal has not alleged diversity jurisdiction, and it is clear from the face of the
Complaint that no diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount demanded on the
face of the Complaint is alleged not to exceed $10,000 − well below the statutory threshold of $75,000.
The Complaint specifically asserts a claim for past due rent of $2,075.00, plus ongoing damages at a
rate of $69.16 per day. Defendant has made no plausible allegations showing how those damages
would exceed $75,000.
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-02433 PA (AFMx)
Title

Date: April 5, 2017

B. Lance Miller dba Westhill Management Company v. Christopher Taylor and
Terrance Corey Taylor; and Does 1 to 10

Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS the
action to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this Order on all parties
who have appeared in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Pro Se Defendant

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

:
vrv

Page 3 of 3