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