JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FUND VILA PASADENA, LP, CASE NUMBER 2:20-cv-09670-CAS-AFMx PLAINTIFF(S) v. THA P R etal. ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DEFENDANT(S)

IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby GRANTED.

Date United States Magistrate Judge

IS RECOMMENDED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED for the following reason(s): Inadequate showing of indigency District Court lacks jurisdiction Legally and/or factually patently frivolous |] Immunity as to Other:

Comments: See attached proposed Order.

10/27/2020 (hy Mock Date United States Magistrate Judge IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby: GRANTED DENIED (see comments above). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: [_] Plaintiff SHALL PAY THE FILING FEES IN FULL within 30 days or this case will be dismissed. [_] This case is hereby DISMISSED immediately. IX} This case is hereby REMANDED to state court. , . October 27, 2020 Ahtuobus fh A He Date United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-09670-CAS-AFMx Date: October 27, 2020 Title Bell Fund VI LA Pasadena, LP v. Samantha Parker, et al.

Present: The Honorable: Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge Catherine M. Jeang N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT Bell Fund VI LA Pasadena, LP (‘Plaintiff’) instituted unlawful detainer proceedings against Samantha Parker, Salma Parker Cooke and Does | to 10 (“Defendants”) in state court. Defendants have allegedly continued in unlawful possession of the property located at 3330 E. Foothill Boulevard, #232, Pasadena, CA (the “Property”) that is owned by Plaintiff. Defendants allegedly entered into an 11-month tenancy of the Property on September 3, 2019, with current rent at $2,669.00 per month. At the time of the 3-day notice to quit, the rent due by Defendants was allegedly $2,669.00. Plaintiff filed its unlawful detainer complaint in state court after Defendants failed to comply with the notice to quit. Defendants have remained in possession of the Property. Defendant Samantha Cooke removed the action to this Court on October 26, 2020. Plaintiff estimates the fair rental value of the property as $88.96 per day. Defendant Cooke asserts federal question jurisdiction in this Court based on alleged violations of a federal statute: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Notice of Removal, pp. 2-4.) Diversity jurisdiction is not alleged. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

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

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

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

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

(9th Cir. 1992).

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes — General Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-09670-CAS-AFMx Date: October 27, 2020 Title Bell Fund VI LA Pasadena, LP v. Samantha Parker, et al,

Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law.

. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’ s properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

(1987). There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc.,

. This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendant’s assertion of RESPA in the Notice of Removal is an apparent attempt to allege a counterclaim against Plaintiff based on a federal statute. That, however, does not create federal question jurisdiction over a state law dispute and defendant has not met her burden of proving jurisdiction exists in this Court. See, e.g., HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Bryant,

, at n.2, *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (remanding state court unlawful detainer action for lack of jurisdiction where RESPA alleged as counterclaim); Prestige Homes, LLC vy. Willis,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2014) (same). Moreover, the notice of removal has not alleged diversity jurisdiction, and it is clear from the face of the Complaint that no diversity jurisdiction exists under

. The amount demanded on the face of the Complaint is alleged not to exceed $10,000 — well below the statutory threshold of $75,000. Defendant has made no plausible allegations showing how those damages would exceed $75,000. The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this order on all parties who have appeared in this action.

cc: Pro Se Defendant

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes — General Page 2 of 2