Leon Aftalion et al v. Marciel Diaz et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION, AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2

JS-6

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 17-03073-MWF
(RAOx)

LEON AFTALION and HAYM
AFTALION,
Plaintiffs,
v.

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

MARCIEL DIAZ and HECTOR
DIAZ,
Defendants.

17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff s Leon Aftalion and Haym Aftalion (“Plaintiffs”) filed an unlawful

21

detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Marciel

22

Diaz, Hector Diaz, and Does 1-10, on February 23, 2017. Notice of Removal

23

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

24

Demurrer and Answer. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly tenants of real

25

property located in Los Angeles, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6.

26

Plaintiffs are the owners of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4.

27
28

Defendant Hector Diaz (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on April 24,
2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction based on Protecting

1

Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5220. Removal at 2.

2

The same day, Defendant filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or

3

costs. 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. Section 1441 provides, in relevant

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

id. § 1331.

28

///
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

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

14

the PTFA. Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to

15

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

16

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

17

is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393,

18

107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s

19

defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal

20

law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id.

21

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face

22

or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

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 Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: April 28, 2017
________________________________________

10

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
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