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