Bonma Enterprise LLC v. Polly J Robateau et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING Action to Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino by Judge Jesus G. Bernal remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1501685. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for specifics). (iva)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
Title

Date

EDCV 15-0594 JGB (JCx)

March 31, 2015

Bonma Enterprise LLC v. Polly J. Robateau

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

Minute Order REMANDING Action to Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino
I. BACKGROUND

In March 2015,1 Plaintiff Bonma Enterprise LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer (“Complaint”) against Defendant Polly J. Robateau (“Defendant”) as well as
fictitious persons in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
(“Complaint,” Doc. No. 1 at 7.) On March 27, 2015, Defendant Robateau removed the action to
this Court. (“Not. of Removal,” Doc. No. 1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth Circuit
applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring “the defendant always has
the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir.
1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party
asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”).
“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S.
215, 231 (1990) (“federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own
jurisdiction”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

1

The exact date of filing is illegible.
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

III. DISCUSSION
Defendant appears to allege that removal is proper on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Not. of Removal at 2-3). For removal to be proper,
Defendant must show that Plaintiff’s “‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law
creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution
of a substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208,
1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677,
689–90 (2006). “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987). “A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her
claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).
From the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful detainer, a
California state law action. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11–01932 LB, 2011 WL
2194117, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“an unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise
under federal law but is purely a creature of California law”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v.
Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010).)
Further, Plaintiff’s right to relief on the unlawful detainer claim does not depend on the
resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Rather, Plaintiff may be entitled to judgment
upon establishing that the subject property was sold in accordance with California Civil Code §
2924 and that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served upon Defendant as required by
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a. See Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d
162, 168 (1977). Defendant claims that federal question jurisdiction exists because she is
entitled to protection under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201.
(Not. of Removal at 2). “A federal defense, however, does not confer jurisdiction on the court to
hear the case.” See H.O.D. Properties, LLC v. Sarkisyan, No. 13-5624, 2013 WL 4052469, at
*3; see also Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. 11-1932, 2011 WL 2194117, at *1-2 (“[T]he
[Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act] only provides tenants with federal defenses to eviction
but does not create a federal ejectment claim or any private right of action. . . . [A]n anticipated
federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, because of the absence of
a federal claim or substantial question of federal law, Defendant has not shown that the Court has
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
IV. CONCLUSION
“If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhibits annexed
thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary
remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined
the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that
this case is properly in federal court. See In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.,
264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving the case is properly in federal court.”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS
this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG