Creekside Holdings, LTD v. Hernandez et al
Filing
4
ORDER Remanding Case. Defendant has failed to establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the Court Remands this action to the Superior Court of San Diego, County of San Diego. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/21/2016.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Superior Court of SD)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CREEKSIDE HOLDINGS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
ORDER REMANDING CASE
v.
14
Case No.: 16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS
VALERIE HERNANDEZ; MARINA
VEGA; MARIA VEGA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On December 2, 2016, Valerie Hernandez (“Defendant”), a defendant in an
unlawful detainer action originally filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, filed a Notice of Removal removing the action to this Court.
(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request
for a sua sponte remand. (Pl.’s Opp’n 3, ECF No. 3.) The Court finds that
Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to establish that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the removed action, and accordingly REMANDS the
action to state court.
Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “any civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district
1
16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS
1
court of the United States for the district court and division embracing the place
2
where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is
3
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the removing defendant bears
4
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v.
5
Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
6
Defendant asserts that removal is proper on the basis of federal question
7
jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal 2.) She argues that Plaintiff’s complaint rests on
8
federal law, namely the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009” (“PFTA”),
9
12 U.S.C. 5220. (Id.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that there is no federal
10
question on the face of its complaint and that instead, Defendant is attempting to
11
assert a federal defense. (Pl.’s Opp’n 2.)
12
“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally
13
or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded
14
complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that
15
the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
16
question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. Of State of Calif. V. Constr. Laborers
17
Vacation Tr. for S. Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Whether a case “arises
18
under” federal law thus turns on the nature of the claims asserted in plaintiff’s
19
complaint. See id. at 10 (“For better or worse . . . a defendant may not remove a
20
case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case
21
‘arises under’ federal law”). “A federal defense, however, is ‘inadequate to confer
22
federal jurisdiction.’” Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 2013)
23
(quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)).
24
Here, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting only a cause of action for unlawful
25
detainer under California state law. The complaint therefore does not state a
26
federal claim, nor does the asserted cause of action rest on federal law.
27
Defendant’s allegations that Plaintiff violated the PFTA are, at most, a defense to
28
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. The PFTA is a federal statute that provides
2
16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS
1
certain protections to tenants who reside in properties subject to foreclosure. 12
2
U.S.C. 5220. However, the law is clear that federal defenses do not confer
3
federal question jurisdiction. Dennis, 724 F.3d at 1253. Moreover, the Ninth
4
Circuit has held that the PFTA does not create a private right of action. Logan v.
5
U.S. Bank N.A., 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013).
6
The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is
7
proper, and the Court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.
8
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)
9
(“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded
10
to state court.”). Defendant has failed to establish this Court’s subject matter
11
jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to the
12
Superior Court of San Diego, County of San Diego.
13
Defendant also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
14
Because the Court remands this action to state court, Defendant’s motion is
15
DENIED as moot.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: December 21, 2016
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS
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?