JS-6 FILED 2 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

4 CW OF en 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || SOUTH BAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. CV 20-02500-JAK (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION V. 14 JEFF DONAHUE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 20 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 | to 10 73 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal (“Removal”), Dkt. No. 1; South Bay Property 74 || Management Inc. v. Jeff Donahue, et al., Case No. 19TWUDO01798, Complaint 25 (“Compl.”).! Defendants are allegedly occupants of an office suite managed by 26 || | The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records. See Fed. R. Evid. 97 || 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 28 reasonably be questioned”); Harris v. Cty. of Orange,

(9th

1 Plaintiff and located in Torrance, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff filed the 2 unlawful detainer action seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary 3 damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 4 Defendant Jeff Donahue (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on March 5 16, 2020, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. 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 Cir. 2012) (noting that a court may take judicial notice of federal and state court 28 records). 1 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 2

§ 1331. 3 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 4 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 5 under

. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of 6 the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of 7 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 9 arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 10 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 12 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 13 Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question 14 jurisdiction exists based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 15 (“PTFA”). Removal at 2-3. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; 16 rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. 17 Bank Nat. Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the 18 complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 19 [plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”); see

. It is well settled that 20 a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even 21 if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties 22 concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. 23 v. Williams,

,

,

(1987). Thus, 24 to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on 25 alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal 26 question jurisdiction. Seeid. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal 27 question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28

. 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, this case is REMANDED forthwith to the Los Angeles County 4 || Superior Court, at its Inglewood Courthouse. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 hie /)\— 7 || Dated: March 24, 2020 C] John A. Kronstadt . United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28