US National Association v. Anthony Matthews et al

Filing 5

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02013-00623153. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 TRANSMITTAL) (rla) Modified on 2/20/2013 (rla).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-00152-CJC(ANx)

Date: February 20, 2013

Title: U.S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. ANTHONY MATTHEWS, ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michelle Urie
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Introduction and Background
Plaintiff U.S. National Association (“Plaintiff”) filed this state law action for
unlawful detainer against Anthony Matthews in the Superior Court for the County of
Orange on January 10, 2013, seeking less than $10,000 in damages. Plaintiff seeks
possession of the property at 246 East 22nd Street, Costa Mesa, CA, which was
foreclosed on and sold to Plaintiff at a trustee’s sale. Aaron Ale intervened as an
additional defendant in this case. On January 30, 2013, Mr. Ale, acting pro se, removed
the action to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1 [Not. of
Removal].) For the following reasons, the Court, on its own motion, REMANDS this
action back to state court.
Discussion
The party removing an action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that
the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right
of removal in the first instance.”). In a case removed from state court, a district court
must remand the case to state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-00152-CJC(ANx)

Date: February 4, 2013
Page 2

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A defendant may
remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court if the federal court may
exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). A federal court can
assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions arising under
federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in controversy that
exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A cause of action arises under federal law
only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).
Mr. Ale has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. This
case appears to be a straightforward action for unlawful detainer, a state-law claim. Mr.
Ale argues that a federal question is present on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint because
the foreclosure was subject to the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009
(“PTFA”). Plaintiff, however, may state a claim for unlawful detainer under California
law without in any way invoking the PTFA. See SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 10CV2108
MMA NLS, 2010 WL 4809661 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (rejecting the argument that
the PTFA created a federal question in an unlawful detainer action). If the PTFA were to
arise at all in this case, it would arise in the context of a defense or counterclaim, neither
of which can form the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado
Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 832 (2002); Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc.,
813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, there are no federal questions on the face of
Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint, and therefore there is no federal question jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to state court.

mtg
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MU