1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICA BRISENO, Case No. CV 21-08187-FMO (RAOx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

13 v. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT

14 LUKE CHARLES STRODE, et al., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR

COSTS

15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19 In September 2021, Plaintiff Monica Briseno filed an unlawful detainer action 20 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Luke Charles Strode and 21 DOES 1-10. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”), Exh. A, at 5-10.1 Defendants 22 are allegedly occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Santa 23 Monica, California. Notice of Removal at 7. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have 24 failed to comply after being served a 30-day notice to vacate and deliver up 25 possession of the property and seeks costs and damages. Id. at 8-10. 26

27 1 For clarity, the Court refers to the page numbers inserted by the Electronic Case 28 Filing system. 1 Defendant Luke Charles Strode (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed a Notice of 2 Removal on October 15, 2021, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. 3 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Defendant also filed an application to proceed in district 4 court without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 8 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 9 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 10 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 11 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 12 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 13 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 14 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 15 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 16 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 17 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 18 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 19 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 20 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 23 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 24 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 25 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 26 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 27 id. § 1331. 28 \\\ 1 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 2 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 4 is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 5 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 6 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 7 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here, there is no federal question 8 apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple 9 unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10- 10 8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 11 detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac 12 Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 13 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack 14 of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful 15 detainer claim). 16 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 17 exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”). 18 Removal at 2. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it provides 19 a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 20 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint because 21 the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to enforce its 22 requirements”); see 12 U.S.C. § 5220. It is well settled that a “case may not be 23 removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is 24 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the 25 federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 26 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent 27 Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations 28 of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 1 See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on 2 its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.2 3 III. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 6 Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 8 district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 DATED: October 19, 2021 /s/ ________________________________________ 12

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 Defendant claims in passing that subject matter jurisdiction also exists pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (providing for removal based on diversity of citizenship). 26 Removal Notice at 2. Defendant does not argue that there is diversity of citizenship elsewhere in the Removal Notice, however, and did not indicate the citizenship of 27 the parties on the civil cover sheet. Dkt. No. 1-1. As such, he has wholly failed to 28 establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.