Dennis Carter et al v. Jackie Abramowitz et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Northwest District/Van Nuys Courthouse, Case number 18VEUD00387. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS the action to State Court forthwith and ORDERS the Court Clerk to promptly to serve this Order on all parties who have appeared in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (ab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

~~'~

CIVIL MINUTES —GENERAL
Case No. CV 18-02883 PSG
Title

Date:

Dennis Carter, Angie Carter v. Jacqueline Abramowitz aka Jacqueline Abramowitz
Kadashaw,Corrine B. Abramowitz. Barry Kadashaw,Does 1-5

Present: The Honorable Phillip S. Gutierrez, U.S. District Judge

Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter /Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
N/A

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT

On January 25,2018, Dennis Carter and Angie Carter ("Plaintiffs") instituted an unlawful
detainer proceeding against Jackie Abramowitz aka Jacqueline Abramowitz Kadashaw, Corinne B.
Abramowtiz, Barry Kadashaw and Does 1 to 5 ("Defendants")in state court. Defendants have
allegedly continued in unlawful possession of the property located at 16731 Sherman Way, Unit 201,
Van Nuys, CA 91406 (the "Property")that is owned by Plaintiffs. Defendants allegedly entered into a
one-year lease of the Property on October 3,2017, with rent at $725.00 per month, and increased
annually after agreement became month to month, with a current rent of $1,825.00 per month. At the
time ofthe 3-day notice to quit, the rent due by Defendants was allegedly $1,825.00. Plaintiffs
estimate the fair rental value ofthe property as $60.83 per day. Plaintiffs filed their unlawful detainer
complaint in state court after Defendants failed to comply with the notice to quit. Defendant Jackie
Abramowitz aka Jacqueline Abramowitz Kadashaw removed the action to this Court on Apri16, 2018.
Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction in this Court based on the "Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act of 2009." (Notice of Removal at pp. 2-7.) Diversity jurisdiction is not alleged.
Federal courts are courts 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(1994). It is this Court's duty to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction,
see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514(2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if
there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d
982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003)("While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a
court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.")(omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action
f
rom state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. B~eeland,

CV-90(03/15)

Civil Minutes —General

Page 1 of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —GENERAL
Case No. CV 18-02883 PSG(AFMx)
Title

Date:

Dennis Carter, Angie Carter v. Jacqueline Abramowitz aka Jacqueline Abramowitz
Kadashaw,Corrine B. Abramowitz,BarrXKadashaw,Does 1-5

792 F.2d 925, 927(9th Cir. 1986). A "strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction exists. See
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567(9th Cir. 1992).
Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions "arising under" federal law. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. A claim arises under federal law "when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiffls
properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392(1987). Plaintiffs'
Complaint here contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. There is no
f
ederal question jurisdiction even if Defendants have alleged an actual or anticipated federal defense to
the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93; Vaden
v. Discover Bank,556 U.S. 49,60(2009). This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there
is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiffs' complaint.
Defendant's assertion of the "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009" does not create
f
ederal question jurisdiction. First, that statute expired at the end of 2014. See P.L. 111-22, section
704, as extended by section 1484 of P.L. 111-203. ("This title, and any amendments made by this title
are repealed, and the requirements under this title shall terminate, on December 31, 2014.") Second,
even if that statute gave rise to a defense against Plaintiffs' foreclosure action, this does not provide the
Court with a basis to assert federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. See,
e.g., Federal Nat. Mortg. Assn v. Kennedy, 2012 WL 1378671, * 1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)(finding
no federal question jurisdiction over a state law unlawful detainer action where the notice of removal
raised the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009); Federal Nat. Mortg. Assn v. Brooks, 2012
WL 773073, *4(C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)(same); Westcom Credit Union, v. Dudley, 2010 WL
4916578, *2-3(C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)(same). 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. Assn,
722 F.3d 1163, 1164(9th Cir. 2013)(affirming dismissal ofthe complaint because the PTFA "does not
create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff) to enforce its requirements"). Accordingly,
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists.
The notice of removal has not alleged diversity jurisdiction, and it is clear from the face of the
Complaint that no diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount demanded on the
f ofthe Camplaint is alleged not to exceed $10,000 —well below the statutory• threshold of $75,000.
ace
The Complaint specifically asserts a claim for past due rent of $1,825.00, plus ongoing damages at a
rate of$60.83 per day. Defendant has made no plausible allegations showing how those damages
would exceed $75,000.

CV-90(03/15)

Civil Minutes —General

Page 2 of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —GENERAL
Case No. CV 18-02883 PSG(AFMx)
Title

Date:

Dennis Carter, Angie Carter v. Jacqueline Abramowitz aka Jacqueline Abramowitz
Kadashaw,Corrine B. Abramowitz,Barry Kadashaw. Does 1-5

Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS the
action to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this Order on all parties
who have appeared in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Pro Se Defendant

Initials of Preparer

CV-90(03/15)

Civil Minutes —General

Page 3 of3