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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?