Zac Properties, LLC v. Rhoades et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANTS. Show Cause Response due by 5/28/2013.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2013)

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

ZAC PROPERTIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-2139 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANTS

14
15
16

VAUGHN RHOADES, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Court of California for the County of Alameda. Defendants, representing themselves, subsequently
purported to remove the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants
allege 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. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear 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 Defendants

7

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

8

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, Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not

15

be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendants believe that this

16

Court has subject matter jurisdiction, they shall file a response in writing by May 28, 2013 that

17

demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants are warned that their failure to file a

18

response will result in remand of this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: May 13, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2