Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC v. Esperanza Tapia et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING THE PRESENT UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION by Judge George H. Wu:, ORDER by Judge George H. Wu. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17STUD03372. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 18-491-GW(JPRx)

Title Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC v. Esperanza Tapia, et al.
Present: The Honorable

February 1, 2018
Page

1 of 2

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez
Deputy Clerk

None Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) – ORDER REMANDING THE PRESENT UNLAWFUL
DETAINER ACTION

Plaintiff Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC brought this unlawful detainer action against
Defendant Esperanza Tapia in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, on October 17, 2017. See generally Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Exhibit A
(Complaint) Docket No. 1. The following day, October 18, 2017, Defendant answered the
Complaint. See generally NOR, Exhibit B (Answer). 93 days later, on January 19, 2018,
Defendant removed the action to this Court. See generally NOR. Defendant alleges that the
Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter. See id. ¶ 3 (“This Court had original
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, this matter is one that may be
removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because it is a civil action arising under
federal law and in which a federal statute is drawn in controversy.”).
The Complaint makes no mention of federal law. In fact, it expressly states that the
unlawful detainer action is brought under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a. See
Complaint ¶ 12. The Answer, filed months ago, makes no mention of federal law. The first
instance of a federal statute being raised in this action comes in the Notice of Removal which
alleges that Plaintiff violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.1 See NOR ¶ 7.
It makes no difference whether this contention was raised in the answer, however, as “[w]hether
a case ‘arises under’ federal law does not depend on matters raised in the answer. The Supreme
Court has rejected proposals that the answer as well as the complaint be consulted before a
determination is made whether the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” O’Connell & Stevenson:
1

The protections provided to tenants by this statute relating to the effect of foreclosure on a preexisting
tenancy were repealed by a sunset provision and are no longer applicable. See Pub. L. No. 111-22, § 704, 123 Stat.
1162, as amended (2009).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 18-491-GW(JPRx)

Title Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC v. Esperanza Tapia, et al.

Date

February 1, 2018
Page

2 of 2

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial: California and Ninth Circuit Editions § 2:731 (Rutter
Grp. 2017) (citing Holmes Grp, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc. 535 U.S. 826, 831
(2002)). No federal question arises under the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court does not have
jurisdiction and sua sponte remands this matter to the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.2

2

The Court additionally notes that Defendant did not timely remove this action as she did so 93 days after
answering the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); but see NOR ¶ 8 (stating in conclusory fashion that “[t]his
notice of removal is timely filed.”).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG