Lido Equities Group v. Thomas et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica, Case number 18SMUD00265.Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LIDO EQUITIES GROUP,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. CV 18-02656-CAS (RAOx)

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

DARIN THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff LIDO Equities Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer

21

action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Darin Thomas

22

and Does 1 to 20 (“Defendants”), on or about January 24, 2018. Notice of Removal

23

(“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are

24

allegedly tenants of real property located in Los Angeles, California (“the

25

property”). Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.

26

Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action demanding that Defendants quit and

27

deliver up possession of the property. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff also seeks monetary

28

damages. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 17.

1

Defendant Darin Thomas filed a Notice of Removal on April 2, 2018,

2

invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-8. Defendant

3

Thomas also filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 3.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

7

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

8

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

9

2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter

10

jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Cir. 1992).

21

Defendant Thomas asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

States.” See id. § 1331.

28
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

question jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of

14

2009 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-8. The PTFA does not create a private right of

15

action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See

16

Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming

17

dismissal of the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of

18

action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a

19

“case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even

20

if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties

21

concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar

22

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987).

23

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based

24

on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for

25

federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not

26

present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks

27

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

28

///
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6

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 Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: April 10, 2018
___

9

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4