Nicolas Orihuela et al v. Raafat Abu Sumaia et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 17UN1142, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1
JS-6 / REMAND

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICOLAS ORIHUELA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

Case No.: CV 17-3677-DMG (RAOx)

v.

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

RAAFAT ABU SUMAIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiffs Nicolas Orihuela and Agustin Orihuela (“Plaintiffs”) filed an

20

unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants

21

Raafat Abu Sumaia and Sara Franco on April 14, 2017. Notice of Removal

22

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

23

Answer. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly holdover tenants of real property

24

located in South Gate, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 1, 3, 6-7. Plaintiffs

25

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

26

Defendant Raafat Abu Sumaia (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on

27

May 16, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction on the basis of a

28

violation of The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12

1

U.S.C. § 5220. Removal at 2. The same day, Defendant filed an application to

2

proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3.

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 2-3. 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 Answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction
2

1

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

2

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

3

unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV

4

10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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 2-3. 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 Plaintiffs’ 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

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: May 19, 2017

DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

________________________________________

Presented by:

12
13
14

________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4