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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?