Rocks in the Bay LLC v. Camden et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting plaintiff's 4 Motion to Remand; denying as moot 6 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff awarded $1,284.95 in attorney fees; Per LCR 3(h), case will be remanded 14 days from date of this Order, on 5/25/2017 by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RS) cc defendants

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ROCKS IN THE BAY L.L.C.,

10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

CHERIE V. CAMDEN, et al.,

13

CASE NO. C17-0418-JCC

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Rocks in the Bay L.L.C.’s motion to

16

remand (Dkt. No. 4). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record,

17

the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons

18

explained herein.

19

On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants

20

Cherie V. Camden, Joseph A. Camden, and all other occupants of the property at issue in King

21

County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) Defendants removed the action to federal court on March

22

17, 2017, asserting this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

23

§ 1441(a), § 1441(b), and 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2.) Plaintiff asks this Court to

24

remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See generally Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff also

25

asks this Court to authorize attorney fees in the amount of $1,284.95 for the 5.1 hours expended

26

in bringing this motion. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2; Dkt. No. 5-1 at 4.)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND
PAGE - 1

1

Once removed, a case can be remanded back to state court for either improper removal

2

procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court has subject

3

matter jurisdiction where the matter (1) arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

4

United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) has an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 and

5

there is complete diversity between the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Subject matter jurisdiction

6

arises from a plaintiff’s complaint; this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction where

7

the only federal issues are federal defenses raised by the defendant. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v.

8

Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582

9

F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009).

10

This Court concludes that removal is improper because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction

11

over this matter. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the parties are not completely

12

diverse—both parties are residents of Washington State. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1–2.) Moreover,

13

Defendants incorrectly assert federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts two

14

claims: unlawful detainer and forceful detainer. Each claim arises under Washington state law,

15

not under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and as such, federal question

16

jurisdiction is not present. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

17

Defendants also inaccurately assert this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 12

18

U.S.C. § 5220, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PFTA). PFTA merely

19

provides a defense to eviction claims. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 772 F.3d 1163, 1164

20

(9th Cir. 2013). As noted above, a federal defense cannot confer federal jurisdiction; thus this

21

Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under PFTA. See Merrell Dow

22

Pharm. Inc., 478 U.S. at 808; Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1086.

23

Concerning fees, attorney fees are recoverable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) where the

24

removing party “lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin

25

Capitol Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Here, removal was improper because this Court lacks

26

subject matter jurisdiction on the face of the complaint. Therefore, the Court GRANTS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND
PAGE - 2

1

Plaintiff’s request for $1,284.95 for attorney fees. (Dkt. No. 5-1 at 4–5.)

2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED.

3

Plaintiff is AWARDED $1,284.95 for attorney fees incurred in preparation of its motion to

4

remand. Further, Judge Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED as

5

moot.

6
7

DATED this 11th day of May 2017.

A

8
9
10

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND
PAGE - 3