Sherman Way Gardens Ltd. v. Arkhipov et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. For the foregoing reasons, Removing Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 20VEUD00050. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Removing Defendant's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 20-10461 PA (Ex)

Title

Sherman Way Gardens Ltd. v. Nikolay Arkhipov, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 18, 2020

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Christine Chung

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Nikolay Arkhipov
(“Removing Defendant”) on November 16, 2020. Plaintiff Sherman Way Gardens Ltd., LP
d/b/a Olive Tree Apartments (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint in Los Angeles County Superior
Court alleging a single state-law claim for unlawful detainer. Removing Defendant, who is
appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. (Id. ¶¶ 5-14.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are 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. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong
presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th
Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction
exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising
under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987).
Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392. If the complaint does not specify whether
a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996).
Thus, plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. There is no
federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim. Id. The only
exception to this rule is where a plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,”
such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law.
Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV 20-10461 PA (Ex)

Date

Title

November 18, 2020

Sherman Way Gardens Ltd. v. Nikolay Arkhipov, et al.

Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer,
which does not arise under federal law. Removing Defendant alleges that removal is proper
because Plaintiff’s actions in attempting to evict him violate the Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act (the “PTFA”) and that Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action is an artfully pleaded
action that is in fact for violation of the PTFA. (See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5-14.) However, 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’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013)
(affirming dismissal of complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action
allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). Neither a federal defense nor a federal
counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also Vaden v.
Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009) (“Under the
longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, . . . a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only when the
plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].’”
(quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S. Ct. 42, 53 L. Ed.
126 (1908))). Removing Defendant therefore has failed to invoke this Court’s federal question
jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, Removing Defendant has failed to meet his burden to
demonstrate that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. 20VEUD00050. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removing Defendant’s
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2