Regency West Enterprises, LP v. Salgado et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge John W. Holcomb: DENYING 3 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60). As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to state court as explained in the attached statement. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (See document for further details) (yl)

Download PDF
Plaintiff brought an action for unlawful detainer in the Orange County Superior Court against Defendants Maria Angelica Salgado and Cesar Salgado Moreno. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) An unnamed party named Ana Cirre subsequently filed a Notice of Removal to this Court and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006). Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and … the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). A review of the Notice of Removal and the state court Complaint demonstrates the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action for the following reasons. The removing party, Ana Cirre, is not a named Defendant. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) For that reason alone, remand to the state court is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (removal may be effectuated only by “the defendant or the defendants”); Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsch Bank National Trust Company, 23 F.4th 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Because an unnamed party removed this case, the district court should have remanded it instead of retaining jurisdiction[.]”). Even if the removing party was a named Defendant, removal still would not be warranted. “Only statecourt actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant. Absent diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (footnotes omitted). Here, federal-question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Because landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law, an action for eviction cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.” Round Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hunter, 907 F. Supp. 1343, 1348 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Powers v. United States Postal Service, 671 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1982) (“[F]ederal common law of landlord and tenant does not exist.”)). The removing party argues Plaintiff engaged in “artful pleading” (ECF No. 1 at 4) to disguise the fact that the action arises under the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”). However, the PTFA does not provide a private right of action. See Logan v. United States Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, removal based on the PTFA is improper. See Utley v. Varian Associates, Inc., 811 F.2d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[T]o permit removal based on a federal statute not conferring a private right of action would disregard the will of Congress to preclude a private remedy in federal court for the statute’s violation.”). For these reasons, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the action is remanded to the state court. (attach additional pages if necessary) CV-73 (07/22) ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NON-PRISONER CASE)

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?