AERC Legendary JV, LLC v. Ha Kim

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 AERC LEGENDARY JV, LLC, Case No. CV 20-00860-SVW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 HA KIM, et al., PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendants. [17] I. [18] FACTUAL BACKGROUND [19] Plaintiff AERC Legendary JV, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer [20] action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Ha Kim and Does [21] 1 to 10 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint [22] (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly occupants of real property owned [23] by Plaintiff and located in Los Angeles, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed [24] the unlawful detainer action seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary [25] damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. [26] Defendant Kim filed a Notice of Removal on January 28, 2020, invoking the [27] Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. [28] 1 Defendant also filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees or 2 costs. Dkt. No. 3. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 6 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 , 114 S. Ct. 1673 , 128 L. Ed. 8 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 9 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 , 126 S. Ct. 1235 , 163 L. 10 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 11 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 12 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 13 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 14 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 15 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 16 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 17 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 18 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to [20] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 21 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 22 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). Section 23 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 24 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See [25] id. § 1331. 26 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 27 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 28 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . First, there is no federal question apparent from the 1 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 2 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 3 WL 4916578 , at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 4 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 5 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 7 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 8 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 9 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 10 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, 11 it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 12 Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 13 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 14 enforce its requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220 . It is well settled that a “case may 15 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 16 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 17 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 18 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430 , 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to 19 the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged 20 violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question 21 jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 22 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1441 . 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 TIL. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 4 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed without 6 || prepayment of fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. [8] 9 || DATED: _ February 4, 2020 STEPHEN V, WILSON) 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE