Peeling v. McCutheon et al

Filing 3

ORDER Remanding Case to the Superior Court of California.. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 4/20/2017. (cc: Superior Court).(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 17cv0771 JAH-RBB

MARK PEELING,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

MICHAEL MCCUTHEON AKA
MICHAEL MCCUTCHEON, et. al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff Mark Peeling filed a complaint in the Superior Court

19

of California, County of San Diego for unlawful detainer against Michael McCutheon aka

20

Michael McCutcheon, Jennifer Romero, and Does 1 to 10 inclusive. The complaint only

21

alleges a state law claim and is a limited civil case with a demand under $10,000.

22

Defendant McCutheon aka McCutcheon, appearing pro se, filed a notice of removal on

23

April 17, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over

24

the complaint and, therefore, sua sponte remands the matter to state court for all further

25

proceedings.

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
17cv0771 JAH-RBB

1
2

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

3

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Kokkoken v. Gardian Life Ins. Co.,

4

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it

5

confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ.,

6

523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Thus, at any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua

7

sponte remand a case to state court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

8

case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Brockman v. Merabank, 40 F.3d 1013, 1016 - 17 (9th Cir.

9

1994).

10

Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action

11

can be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. See Caterpillar,

12

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a party invoking the federal removal

13

statutes must establish jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence of: (1) a statutory basis;

14

(2) a federal question; or (3) diversity of the parties. See Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford

15

Acc. And Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981). District courts must construe

16

the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as to removability

17

in favor of remanding the case to state court. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.

18

1988). The burden is on the removing party to demonstrate federal subject matter

19

jurisdiction over the case. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th

20

Cir. 1988).

21

II.

Analysis

22

Upon review of the notice of removal and the complaint, this Court finds it

23

appropriate to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the notice of removal fails

24

to establish a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The complaint asserts a single cause

25

of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant maintains he removed the action because the

26

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”) preempts state law as to bona fide

27

residential tenants of foreclosed landlords. Preemption gives rise to federal question

28

jurisdiction only when an area of state law has been completely preempted by federal law.
2
17cv0771 JAH-RBB

1

See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Defendant fails to demonstrate the PTFA completely

2

preempts state law. In fact, the express language of the statute indicates Congress did not

3

intend the PTFA to be the exclusive remedy. 12 U.S.C. § 5220 Note § (a) (Stating that the

4

Act does not affect the requirements of any state or local law providing for longer time

5

periods or additional protections for tenants); P.L. No. 111-22 § 702(a)(2)(A), see also

6

PNC Bank, National Association v. Branch, 2011 WL 281806 (D.Arizona 2011). To the

7

extent Defendant asserts the PTFA as a defense, a federal defense is insufficient to establish

8

federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Plaintiff’s complaint for

9

unlawful detainer fails to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly,

10

the Court deems it appropriate to sua sponte remand the matter to state court.

11
12

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the instant complaint is sua

13

sponte REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings.

14

DATED:

15
16
17

April 20, 2017
____________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17cv0771 JAH-RBB