Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC v. Esperanza Tapia

Filing 5

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 17STUD03373. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

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

Date

CV 18-1031-DMG (SKx)

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

JS-6 / REMAND

February 15, 2018
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Notice of Removal (“NOR”) at ¶ 1 [Doc. # 1]; Complaint at 3–
4 [Doc. # 1 at 7–8]; see also Ex. B (“Answer”) to NOR (Defendant filed answer in state court
and served responsive document on October 18, 2017). On February 7, 2018, Defendant
removed the action to this Court. [Doc. # 1.] Defendant contends that this Court has original
federal question jurisdiction over the matter because “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice
which expressly references and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009’
[(“PTFA”)], 12 U.S.C. § 5201.” NOR at ¶ 7. Defendant also asserts that the removal is timely.
Id. at ¶ 8.
Defendant has failed to discharge the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
See Marin v. Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking
removal.”). First, federal question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). Here, Plaintiff brings an unlawful detainer action, which is “purely a creature
of California law.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Adame, No. , 2014 WL 12599851, at *3 (C.D.
Cal. June 30, 2014) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL
2194117, at *3 (ND. Cal. June 6, 2011)). Further, “the fact that [Plaintiff] served a notice to
vacate under [the PTFA] does not make that federal statute an element, let alone an essential one,
of [Plaintiff’s] unlawful detainer action.” Id. (no federal question jurisdiction in unlawful
detainer action where defendant raised same argument under PTFA as here).

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 18-1031-DMG (SKx)

Title Hollyvale Rental Holdings, LLC v. Esperanza Tapia

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

February 15, 2018
Page

2 of 2

Second, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the removal is untimely. A defendant must
file a notice of removal within 30 days after “receipt . . . of a copy of the initial pleading setting
forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 17, 2017, and Defendant filed the instant NOR on
February 7, 2018, over two months after the 30-day deadline likely had passed. See Answer
(dated and served October 18, 2017). Defendant provides no explanation for the apparent delay
in removing this action to federal court. See NOR at 1–3.
Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The action is
hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT