Glen Irving v. Anthony Robinson et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1705315. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-1744 PA (FFMx)

Title

Glen Irving v. Anthony Robinson

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 1, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Anthony Robinson
(“Defendant”) on August 28, 2017. Plaintiff Glen Irving (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint in San
Bernardino County Superior Court asserting a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Notice of
Removal, 10-15.) Defendant, who is appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule, “federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify whether a
claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is “clear” that it
raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, plaintiff is
generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318.
There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim. Id. at
392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal
claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state
claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F. 2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir.
1987).
Here, the underlying Complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant
alleges that removal is proper because Plaintiff’s actions in attempting to evict Defendant violate the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-1744 PA (FFMx)

Title

Date

September 1, 2017

Glen Irving v. Anthony Robinson

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (the “PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5220. However, the PTFA does not
create a private right of action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See
Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n , 722 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of complaint
because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its
requirements”). Therefore, Defendant’s allegations do not provide a proper basis for removal, as a
federal defense cannot form a basis for removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70,
129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Additionally, because the Complaint alleges only a state law
claim for unlawful detainer, it does not present a claim “arising under” federal law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
this action is hereby remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. UDFS1705315. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2) is denied as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2