VRM v. Clifton Edward et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17U06049, Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-7791 PA (AFMx)

Title

VRM v. Clifton Edward Doc Jones, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 30, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Glenn Bailey (“Defendant”) on
October 25, 2017. In its Complaint, plaintiff VRM (Vendor Resource Management), Duly Authorized
Agent for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single state law claim for unlawful
detainer. Defendant, who is appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on
the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule, “federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify whether a
claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is “clear” that it
raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, plaintiff is
generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318.
There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim. Id. at
392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal
claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state
claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F. 2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir.
1987).
Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Defendant alleges that removal is proper because Plaintiff’s actions in attempting to evict Defendant
violate the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (the “PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5220, or that Plaintiff’s
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-7791 PA (AFMx)

Date

Title

October 30, 2017

VRM v. Clifton Edward Doc Jones, et al.

unlawful detainer action is an artfully pleaded action that is in fact for violation of the PTFA. (Notice of
Removal ¶¶ 10, 13, 17.) However, the PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it provides
a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n , 722 F.3d 1163,
1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right
of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). Therefore, Defendant’s allegations do not
provide a proper basis for removal, as a federal defense cannot form a basis for removal. See, e.g.,
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Additionally,
because the Complaint alleges only a state law claim for unlawful detainer, it does not present a claim
“arising under” federal law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 17U06049. See 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2