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)

Download PDF
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

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?