The Arbors at California Oaks Property Owners LLC v. Tonya Harrigan et al

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number TEC1400842. (See document for specifics) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (adu)

F\LEO

1

2
3

lOl~ ""'f 2 l PH 5: \2

4

CLE~~~~t ~\ST. OF C~UF.

ISlRICi COUR

CE"

6

RI'IERS\0

BY:-

5

--

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11
12

THE ARBORS AT
CALIFORNIA OAKS
PROPERTY OWNERS LLC,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. ED CV 14-978-UA (DUTYx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

vs.
TONYA HARRIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
summarily because defendant removed it improperly.
On May 15, 2014, 2014, defendant Tonya Harrigan, having been sued in

21

what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court,

22

lodged a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court, and also presented an

23

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter

24

application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To

25

prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this

26

Order to remand the action to state court.

27

Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in

28

the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either

1

1 diversity or federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28
2

U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,

3

563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Here, defendant has asserted

4

federal question jurisdiction as her basis for removal, but the unlawful detainer

5

action to be removed does not actually raise any federal legal question. See 28

6

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S.

7

804, 808, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986) ("the question for removal

8 jurisdiction must ... be determined by reference to the 'well-pleaded complaint"').
9

Defendant argues the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220

10

("PTF A") applies and raises a federal question in the unlawful detainer action;

11

however, "[a] defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal

12 jurisdiction." Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808. Further, the Ninth Circuit has held
13

that the PTF A does not create a private right of action that would allow a tenant to

14

enforce its requirements in federal court. Logan v. US. Bank Nat'! Ass 'n, 722

15

F.3d 1163, 1169-73 (9th Cir. 2013).

16

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

17

Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 41002 County Center Drive #100,

18

Temecula, CA 92591, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 144 7( c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court;

20

and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

21
22
23

DATED:

24
25

Presented by:

26
27
28

Shen Pym
United -states Magistrate Judge
2