VRM Vendor Resource Management v. Clifton Edward Doc Jones et al
Filing
7
ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 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 Bailey's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)
JS-6
1
2
9/25/2017
C
W
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
VRM (VENDOR RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT), duly authorized
agent for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs,
13
14
15
16
17
Case No. CV 17-07010-MWF (RAOx)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff,
v.
CLIFTON EDWARD DOC JONES,
et al.,
Defendants.
18
19
I.
20
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff VRM (Vendor Resource Management), duly authorized agent for
22
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Plaintiff”), filed an unlawful detainer action in
23
Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Clifton Edward Doc Jones
24
and Does 1-10, on or about June 14, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and
25
Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly holdover
26
occupants of real property located in Los Angeles, California (“the property”).
27
Compl. ¶¶ 3-6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property, which was acquired after a
28
Trustee’s Sale following foreclosure proceedings. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, 7. Plaintiff has
1
filed the unlawful detainer action demanding that defendants quit and deliver up
2
possession of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages.
3
Id.
Defendant Emma Bailey (“Defendant Bailey”) filed a Notice of Removal on
4
5
September 22, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction based on the
6
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5220 (“PTFA”). Removal
7
at 2-6.
8
9
The same day, Defendant Bailey filed a Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.
10
II.
11
DISCUSSION
12
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter
13
jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,
14
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128
15
L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject
16
matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,
17
163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is
18
an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,
19
336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an
20
opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,
21
it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting
22
internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to
23
federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.
24
Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”
25
against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th
26
Cir. 1992).
27
Defendant Bailey asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to
28
the existence of a federal question. Removal at 2-6. Section 1441 provides, in
2
1
relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state
2
court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
3
Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
4
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
5
States.” See id. § 1331.
6
Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint
7
makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the
8
instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent
9
from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful
10
detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203
11
GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful
12
detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac
13
Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL
14
234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack
15
of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an
16
unlawful detainer claim).
17
Second, there is no merit to Defendant Bailey’s contention that federal
18
question jurisdiction exists because the tenancy at issue is subject to the PTFA.
19
Removal at 3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it
20
provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank
21
Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the
22
complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing
23
[plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a “case may not be
24
removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is
25
anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the
26
federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393,
27
107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus, to the extent Defendant Bailey’s defenses to the unlawful
28
detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not
3
1
provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s
2
complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled,
3
the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4
III.
5
CONCLUSION
6
7
8
9
10
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 Bailey’s Request to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
DATED: September 25, 2017
________________________________________
13
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
Presented by:
16
17
18
19
________________________________________
ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?