Federal National Mortgage Association v. Edgar A Monge, Jr et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Case remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1502102. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iva)

PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 15-01824-VAP (SPx)

Date: September 10, 2015

Title:

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION -v- EDGAR A.
MONGE, JR., ET AL
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)

On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association
("Fannie Mae"), filed a Complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of
Fontana for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Edgar A. Monge, Jr., and Gina
Regan Monge ("Defendants") in case number UDFS 1502102. (See Not. of
Removal (Doc. No. 1) Ex. A.) On September 4, 2015, Defendants, appearing pro
se, removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction,
asserting that Fannie Mae violated the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of
2009 ("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (See Not. of Removal at 2-3.) For the following
reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 1

EDCV 15-01824-VAP (SPx)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. EDGAR A. MONGE, JR., ET AL
MINUTE ORDER of September 10, 2015

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. FedermanBachrach & 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.").
Defendants argue that Fannie Mae's unlawful detainer action is based "upon a
notice which expressly references and incorporates the 'Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act of 2009,' 12 U.S.C. § 5201." (Not. of Removal at 2-3.) Specifically,
Defendants contend that Fannie Mae violated the PTFA by filing a state eviction
proceeding before allowing 90 days to lapse. (Id.) Accordingly, Defendants contend
that Fannie Mae's violation of federal law confers this Court with federal question
jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions
"arising under" federal law. From the face of the Complaint, however, Fannie Mae's
only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See Franchise Tax
Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a
defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the basis for federal
jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Furthermore, as the Ninth
Circuit has recently held, the PTFA "does not create a private right of action." Logan
v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013). In other words,
Fannie Mae is barred from suing Defendants under the PTFA. Thus, the argument
that Fannie Mae has stated a federal claim under the PTFA upon which this Court
may exercise jurisdiction is without merit. As "[a]n unlawful detainer action does not
raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded
for lack of jurisdiction," the Court will remand this action. See Cooper v. Washington
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 2

EDCV 15-01824-VAP (SPx)
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. EDGAR A. MONGE, JR., ET AL
MINUTE ORDER of September 10, 2015

Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003).
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md____
Page 3