1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAN PANNU, Case No. CV 20-02065-SVW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 DOMINGO MARTIR, et al., PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR 15 Defendants. COSTS 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Mohan Pannu (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los 20 Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Domingo Martir, Shirley Yodira 21 Sandoval, Mercy Sandoval, Kevin Pimentel, and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”). 22 Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. 23 Defendants are allegedly occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located 24 in Pomona, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action 25 seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable 26 attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 27 /// 28 1 Defendant Shirley Yodira Sandoval (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal 2 on March 3, 2020, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2- 3 3. 4 Defendant also filed an application to proceed in district court without 5 prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 6 II. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 9 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 10 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

,

,

2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 12 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

,

,

Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 14 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336

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

925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 21 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

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

and 1441. Removal at 2-3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 24 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 25 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See

(a). Section 26 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 27 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28

§ 1331. 1 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 2 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 3 matter under

. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 4 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 5 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010

, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does 7 not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 8 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 10 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 11 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 12 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 13 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 14 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. 15 Bank Nat. Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the 16 complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 17 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see

. It is well settled that 18 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even 19 if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties 20 concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. 21 v. Williams,

,

,

(1987). Thus, 22 to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on 23 alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal 24 question jurisdiction. See

Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 25 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28

. 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 in 6 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | DATED: _March 11, 2020 10 fey, 2 )hor

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28