1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CERISE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. CV 19-09700-AB-RAOx 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS LAKENDRA COLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Cerise Property Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 20 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Lakendra 21 Cole, Jessica Collazo, and Does 1 to 5 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal 22 (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are 23 allegedly occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Hawthorne, 24 California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action seeking 25 forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. 26 Id. at ¶ 17. 27 /// 28 1 Defendant Collazo filed a Notice of Removal on November 12, 2019, 2 invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 1-3. 3 Defendant Collazo also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 4 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.,

,

,

2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 11 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

,

,

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., 14

, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an 15 opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, 16 it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting 17 internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to 18 federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. 19 Breeland,

(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” 20 against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th 21 Cir. 1992). 22 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 23

and 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 24 that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 25 federal court has original jurisdiction. See

(a). Section 1331 26 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 27 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

§ 1331. 28 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes 1 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 2 under

. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of 3 the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of 4 action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx),

4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not 6 arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 7 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 9 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 10 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 11 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 12 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 13 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. 14 U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of 15 the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 16 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see

. It is well settled that 17 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . 18 even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both 19 parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” 20 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

,

,

318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer 22 action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide 23 a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does 24 not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks 25 jurisdiction under

. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. 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 request to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | DATED: November 19, 2019 ° (nh C-—— ANDREBIROTTEIR, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28