Parkland Sec. Inc. v. Carey

32 Citing cases

  1. Lefever Mattson, Inc. v. Bivens

    No. 2:17-cv-01848-GEB-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2017)

    Defendant's "reference to the PTFA is best characterized as a defense or potential counterclaim." Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, Civ. No. S-11-3281 GEB GGH PS, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan 18, 2012). Therefore, Defendant has not shown the existence of federal question removal jurisdiction.

  2. Federal National Mortgage Association v. Monge

    SA CV 15-1202-DOC (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2015)

    Additionally, other courts within this district have held that the PFTA cannot serve as a basis for federal removal jurisdiction. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Jenkins, No. 5:11-CV-01762-JHN-SP 2012 WL 242858 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012); Parkland Securities, Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Thus, Defendants have no basis for removing Plaintiff's state-law claim to federal court.

  3. Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Carreras

    No. 2:15-cv-1137-JAM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2015)

    ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.") Indeed, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the PTFA. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (unpublished); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at **2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished); SD Coastline LP, 2010 WL 4809661, at **2-3; Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpublished). Such rejection is based on the fact that an argument relying on the PTFA's notice provision is an attempt to premise the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim.

  4. Maxum Investments, LP v. Mlivic

    No. 2:15-cv-0029-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)

    ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.") Indeed, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the PTFA. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (unpublished); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at **2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished); SD Coastline LP, 2010 WL 4809661, at **2-3; Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpublished). Such rejection is based on the fact that an argument relying on the PTFA's notice provision is an attempt to premise the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim.

  5. Bank of America, N.A. v. Whitney

    Case No. 1:14-cv-01086- -SMS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014)

    Bank of New York Mellon v. Flores, 2012 WL 761951 at *3 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 7, 2012), report and recommendationvacated, 2012 WL 1981329 (E.D.Cal. June 1, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3886097 (E.D.Cal. Sep. 6, 2012), (No. 2:12-cv-00435-KJM-KJN PS). Federal courts have consistently rejected this argument since for removal purposes, federal jurisdiction may not be premised on a defense or counterclaim. See Everbank, 2012 WL 156714 at * 3; Citibank, N.A. v. Corey, 2012 WL 1552888 at *3 (E.D.Cal. April 26, 2012) (No. 2:12-cv-00499-MCE); Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (No. 11-cv-3281-GEB-GGH); Westcom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx)); SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 2010 WL 4809661 at *2-3 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (No. 10CV2108 MMA NLS); Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887 at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (No. C10-01260 HRL). Removal of this case to federal district court is not justified based on federal question jurisdiction.

  6. Pacifica L 23, LLC v. Rueger

    Case No. 1:14-cv-01711-AWI-SMS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014)

    Bank of New York Mellon v. Flores, 2012 WL 761951 at *3 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 7, 2012), report and recommendation vacated, 2012 WL 1981329 (E.D.Cal. June 1, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3886097 (E.D.Cal. Sep. 6, 2012), (No. 2:12-cv-00435-KJM-KJN PS). Federal courts have consistently rejected this argument since for removal purposes, federal jurisdiction may not be premised on a defense or counterclaim. See Everbank, 2012 WL 156714 at * 3; Citibank, N.A. v. Corey, 2012 WL 1552888 at *3 (E.D.Cal. April 26, 2012) (No. 2:12-cv-00499-MCE); Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (No. 11-cv-3281-GEB-GGH); Westcom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx)); SD Coastline LP v. Buck, 2010 WL 4809661 at *2-3 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 19, 2010) (No. 10CV2108 MMA NLS); Aurora Loan Serv., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887 at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (No. C10-01260 HRL). Removal of this case to federal district court is not justified based on federal question jurisdiction.

  7. Alvernaz Investments, LLC v. Pawlik

    No. 2:14-cv-2027-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2014)

    ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.") Indeed, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the PTFA. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (unpublished); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at **2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished); SD Coastline LP, 2010 WL 4809661, at **2-3; Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpublished). Such rejection is based on the fact that an argument relying on the PTFA's notice provision is an attempt to premise the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim.

  8. U.S. Bank Trust v. Bracken

    No. 2:14-cv-1738-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.") Indeed, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the PTFA. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (unpublished); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at **2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished); SD Coastline LP, 2010 WL 4809661, at **2-3; Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpublished). Such rejection is based on the fact that an argument relying on the PTFA's notice provision is an attempt to premise the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim.

  9. Colline v. Alexander

    No. 2:14-cv-1245-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 30, 2014)

    Any defenses or counterclaims based on federal law must generally be raised in the state court action and do not provide a basis for removal. "A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense,...even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case." ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep't. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.") Indeed, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision of the PTFA. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012) (unpublished); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at **2-3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (unpublished); SD Coastline LP, 2010 WL 4809661, at **2-3; Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (unpublished). Such rejection is based on the fact that an argument relying on the PTFA's notice provision is an attempt to premise the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a defense or counterclaim.

  10. CCF Ventures, LLC v. Sekhon

    No. 2:14-CV-0924 JAM AC (E.D. Cal. May. 2, 2014)

    In any event, federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision provided in the Act. See, e.g., Parkland Sec., Inc. v. Carey, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012), adopted by 2012 WL 458433 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010); Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010). Additionally, federal district courts have concluded that the Act does not create a federal private right of action, but provides directives to state courts.