Opinion
Case No. CV 20-02500-JAK (RAOx)
03-24-2020
SOUTH BAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFF DONAHUE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff South Bay Property Management Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Jeff Donahue, Business Tech Solutions, Dynamic Software Design, and Does 1 to 10 ("Defendants"). Notice of Removal ("Removal"), Dkt. No. 1; South Bay Property Management Inc. v. Jeff Donahue, et al., Case No. 19IWUD01798, Complaint ("Compl."). Defendants are allegedly occupants of an office suite managed by Plaintiff and located in Torrance, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17.
The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (providing that a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that a court may take judicial notice of federal and state court records).
Defendant Jeff Donahue ("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on March 16, 2020, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3.
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court's duty always to examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) ("While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.") (omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a "strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." See id. § 1331.
Here, the Court's review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) ("An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.") (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that federal question jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 ("PTFA"). Removal at 2-3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint because the PTFA "does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements"); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that 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 concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant's defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED forthwith to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, at its Inglewood Courthouse.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2020
/s/_________
John A. Kronstadt
United States District Judge