Empire Management, LLC v. Ashley L. Prentiss et al
Filing
7
ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)
FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
1
SEPT 12 2017
2
3
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
vdr
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY
5
JS-6
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EMPIRE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. CV 17-06600-FMO (RAOx)
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
ASHLEY L. PRENTISS, et al.,
15
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Defendants.
16
17
I.
18
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Empire Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer
19
20
action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Ashley L.
21
Prentiss, Ashanti M. Watson, and Does 1-10, on or about July 19, 2017. Notice of
22
Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.
23
Defendants are allegedly former tenants of real property located in Sherman Oaks,
24
California (“the property”). Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 6. Plaintiff, who is the owner of the
25
property, has filed the unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4,
26
6.
27
Defendant Ashley L. Prentiss (“Defendant Prentiss”) filed a Notice of
28
Removal on September 7, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction
1
based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5220
2
(“PTFA”). Removal at 2-7.
3
4
The same day, Defendant Prentiss filed a Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.
5
II.
6
DISCUSSION
7
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter
8
jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,
9
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128
10
L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject
11
matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,
12
163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is
13
an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,
14
336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an
15
opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,
16
it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting
17
internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to
18
federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.
19
Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”
20
against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th
21
Cir. 1992).
22
Defendant Prentiss asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due
23
to the existence of a federal question. Removal at 2-6. Section 1441 provides, in
24
relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state
25
court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
26
Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
27
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
28
States.” See id. § 1331.
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 Prentiss’s contention that federal
13
question jurisdiction exists based on the asserted defense that Plaintiff did not allow
14
the 90-day notice period required under the PTFA to lapse before filing the
15
unlawful detainer action. Removal at 2-6. The PTFA does not create a private
16
right of action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions.
17
See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming
18
dismissal of the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of
19
action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a
20
“case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even
21
if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties
22
concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar,
23
482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus, to the extent Defendant Prentiss’s
24
defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal
25
law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id.
26
Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face
27
or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 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: September 12, 2017
____________/s/____________________________
10
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?