PNC Bank, National Association v. Ostria

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANT. Show Cause Response due by 4/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certficate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

PNC BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C13-0988 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANT

14
15
16

EDWARD J. OSTRIA,
Defendant.

17
18
Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendant in the Superior
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Court of California for the County of Marin. Defendant, representing himself, subsequently
purported to remove the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendant
alleges that “Plaintiff has actually filed a Federal Question action in State Court.” (Dkt. No. 1 a 2.)
In particular, he explains that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), 12
U.S.C. § 5220, preempts state law as to bona fide residential tenants of foreclosed landlords. (Id.)
Defendant, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bears the burden of establishing
that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal
jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, when a case is
removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The

1

Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and has determined that federal question jurisdiction does

2

not exist.

3

“Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well-

4

pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, 2012 WL 2077311 *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). The

5

removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. Therefore, this Court does

6

not have federal question jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311 at *1. That Defendant

7

raises defenses and preemption arguments related to the PTFA is irrelevant; a defendant cannot

8

create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims, raising defenses, or alleging ordinary

9

preemption. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 826, 830-31 (2002); Valles v.

Northern District of California

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim

11
United States District Court

10

does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is

12

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Sue Lin Poh, 2012 WL

13

3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) (remanding removed unlawful detainer action).

14

Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to show cause as to why this case should not be remanded

15

to the Marin County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendant believes that this Court has subject

16

matter jurisdiction, it shall file a response in writing by April 11, 2013 that demonstrates why this

17

Court has jurisdiction. Defendant is warned that his failure to file a response will result in remand of

18

this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: March 28, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2