PNK Investments LLC v. Schafer et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Remand Per LCR 3(h), case will be remanded 14 days from the date of this Order, on 11/3/2017. signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. Mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PNK INVESTMENTS, LLC
Plaintiff,

10

12

ORDER

v.

11

CASE NO. C17-00951-RAJ

MARGARET SCHAFER,
Defendant.

13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff PNK Investments, LLC’s Motion

14
15

to Remand. Dkt. # 9. Defendant did not file a response to this Motion 1. This is an

16

unlawful detainer action against Defendant Margaret Schafer and any other occupants of

17

a real property located in Skagit County, Washington. Dkt. # 1 Ex. 1.
Defendant removed this action to this Court on the basis that the notice Plaintiff

18
19

delivered did not comply with the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C.

20

§ 5220 (“PTFA”). See Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 7-9. However, this does not provide a basis for

21

removal. Pursuant to the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal-question jurisdiction

22

exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly

23

pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). To the

24

extent that Defendant is attempting raise a defense to Plaintiff’s action under PTGA, “a

25

federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court,

26
27
28

1

Under this Court’s Local Rules, “such failure may be considered by the court as an admission
that the motion has merit.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2).

ORDER – 1

1

even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's

2

complaint.” See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

Nor can Defendant argue that federal jurisdiction is proper due to federal

4

preemption. PTFA expired on December 31, 2014. See Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform

5

and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 2204 (2010).

6

Defendant received notice to vacate the property at issue on May 19, 2017 and removed

7

this case on June 21, 2017, well after PTFA’s expiration. Dkt. # 9 ¶ 2.3.; Dkt. # 1. As

8

such, PTFA is not applicable to this action and Plaintiff’s state claim cannot be

9

preempted by federal law.

10

Even if PTFA was applicable here, the Ninth Circuit has held that PTFA did not

11

create a federal private cause of action. Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163,

12

1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The PTFA is framed in terms of ‘protections’ for tenants,

13

suggesting that it was intended to provide a defense in state eviction proceedings rather

14

than a basis for offensive suits in federal court.”). As there is no basis for federal

15

question jurisdiction, Defendant’s removal was improper and this matter must be

16

remanded.

17
18

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS this
case to Skagit County Superior Court.

19
20

DATED this 20th day of October, 2017

21
22

A

23
24

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3