2014 3 IH Borrower L.P. v. David Patrick Goode et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case number RIC1701505 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (shb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
1 1 ~ 2014-3 IH BORROWER L.P.,

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14 ~ DAVID PATRICK GOODE,et al.,
15

Case No. CV 17-00578-TJH (RAOx)

Defendants.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION,
DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT,AND DENYING EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
REMAND AS MOOT

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff 2014-3 IH Borrower L.P.("Plaintiff') filed an unlawful detainer

2
0

action in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendants David Patrick

21

Goode, Valorie Ruth Goode, and Does 1-10, on or about January 25, 2017. Notice

22

of Removal("Removal")and Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

"Compl.")and Demurrer. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly unauthorized
23 (
2
4

tenants of real property located in Riverside, California ("the property"). Compl.,

25

¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner ofthe property. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4.

2
6

Defendant David Patrick Goode ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on

27

March 27, 2017, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction based on

28

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of2009("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5220.

1

Removal at 2. The same day, Defendant filed an application to proceed informa

2

pauperis. Dkt. No. 5.

3
4

On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Remand Case
to Riverside County Superior Court and a Motion to Remand. (Dkt. Nos. 6-7.)

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

9

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

10

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court's duty always to examine its own subject

11

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

12

163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

13

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc.,

14

336 F.3d 982,985 (9th Cir. 2003)("While a party is entitled to notice and an

15

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

16

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")(omitting

17

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

18

f
ederal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

19

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925,927(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a "strong presumption"

20

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567(9th

21

Cir. 1992).

22

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

23

existence of a federal question. (Removal at 2-3.) Section 1441 provides, in

24

relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state

25

court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

26

Section 1331 provides that federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

27

all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

28

States." See id. § 1331.

1

Here, the Court's review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint

2

and Demurrer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question

3

jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no

4

f
ederal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege

5

only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v.

6

Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.CaI. Nov. 22,

7

2010)("An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.") (citation

8

omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337

9

PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2(C.D.CaI. Jan. 13, 2010)(remanding an action

10

to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint

11

contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that federal question

12
13

jurisdiction exists because the Complaint failed to comply with the requirements of

14

the PTFA. Removal at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action;

15

rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v

16

U Bank Nat. Assn,722 F.3d 1163, 1164(9th Cir. 2013)(affirming dismissal of
.S.

17

the complaint because the PTFA "does not create a private right of action allowing

18

[plaintiff) to enforce its requirements"). It is well settled that a "case may not be

19

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense ...even if the defense is

2
0

anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the

21

f
ederal defense is the only question truly at issue." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

22

482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430,96 L.Ed.2d 318(1987). Thus, to the

23

extent Defendant's defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged

2
4

violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question

25

jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal

2
6

question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28

27

U.S.C. § 1331.

28

///
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7
8

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Riverside, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to
Remand and Motion to Remand are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
.~

10

~~.
11

DATED: April 6, 2017

12

~
TERRY J. HATTER,JR.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14 ~ Presented by:
15

16
17

3

ROZE LEA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
2
0
21
22
23
24
25
2
6
27
28
4