Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Leonard McCrae et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Southeast Division, Case number 17NWUD00468 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 (ab)

~S ~
~"

2
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT "y'°

3

ocr~ 2`5' 2oir

4
_ NT

5

i~ICT Of CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY
FUND 2016, LLC,

Case No. CV 17-07652-PSG(RAOx)

12

Plaintiff,
13

v.

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

14

LEONARD McCRAE,et al.,
15

Defendants.
16
17
18

I
.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2
0

Plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC ("Plaintiff'), filed an

21

unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants

2
2

Leonard McCrae and Does 1-10, on or about September 1, 2017. Notice of

23

Removal("Removal")and Attached Complaint("Compl."), Dkt. No. 1.

2
4

Defendants are allegedly holdover occupants ofreal property located in Whittier,

25

California ("the property"). Compl. ¶¶ 3, 8, 17. Plaintiff is the owner ofthe

2
6

property, which was acquired after a Trustee's Sale following foreclosure

27

proceedings. Id. at ¶¶ 4-8. Plaintiff has filed the unlawful detainer action

28

demanding that defendants quit and deliver up possession ofthe property. Id.

1

at ¶¶ 12-13. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. Id. at ¶¶ 14-16, Prayer for

2 II Relief.
3

Defendant Leonard McCrae ("Defendant")filed a Notice of Removal on

4

October 19, 2017, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-

5 ~ 3, 5-6.
6
7

The same day, Defendant filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 3.

8

II.

9

DISCUSSION

10

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

11

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

12

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

13

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court's duty always to examine its own subject

14

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

15

163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

16

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc.,

17

336 F.3d 982,985 (9th Cir. 2003)("While a party is entitled to notice and an

18

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

19

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")(omitting

20. internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to
21

f
ederal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

22

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925,927(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a "strong presumption"

23

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567(9th

24

Cir. 1992).

25

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

2
6

existence of a federal question. Removal at 2-3, 5-6. Section 1441 provides, in

27

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

28

court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
2

1

Section 1331 provides that federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

2 ~~ all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
3

States." See id. § 1331.

4

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

5

makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the

6

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

7

f
rom the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful

8

detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203

9

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.CaI. Nov. 22, 2010) ("An unlawful

10

detainer action does not arise under federal law.") (citation omitted); IndyMac

11

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

12

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

13

of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an

14

unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that federal question

15
16

jurisdiction exists because defenses to the unlawful detainer involve federal issues

17

of fair housing, retaliatory discrimination, and civil rights. Removal at 5-6. It is

18

well settled that a "case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a

19

f
ederal defense ...even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint,

2
0

and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at

21

issue." Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus, to the extent

22

Defendant's defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations

23

offederal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question

2
4

jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal

25

question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28

2
6

U.S.C. § 1331.

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:

L~ ~

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

Presented by:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
24
25
2
6
2
7
2
8

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE