1 2 JS -6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAHRAM SABA, Case No. CV 21-08711-MWF (RAO)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 MARIA SINUTKO, et al., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff Shahram Saba filed an unlawful detainer action in 20 Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Maria Sinutko and DOES 1- 21 10. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”) at 8-12.1 Defendants are allegedly 22 occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Sherman Oaks, 23 California. Notice of Removal at 9. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to 24 comply after being served a 30-day notice to vacate and deliver up possession of the 25 property and seeks costs and damages. Id. 26

27 1 For clarity and because the pages appear to have been filed out of order, the Court 28 refers to the page numbers inserted by the Electronic Case Filing system. 1 Defendant Jose R. Garcia Ruiz (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed a Notice of 2 Removal on November 4, 2021, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 3 Id. at 2, 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.,

,

,

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., 336

(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,

925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 20 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

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

and 1441. Notice of Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in 23 relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court 24 of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See

(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

§ 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

. “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,

, 7 392,

,

(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),

, 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),

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”). Notice 18 of Removal at 2-7. The PTFA does not create a private right of action; rather, it 19 provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. See Logan v. U.S. Bank 20 Nat. Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of the complaint 21 because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing [plaintiff] to 22 enforce its requirements”); see

. It is well settled that a “case may 23 not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 24 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 25 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v.

U.S. 386, 393,

,

(1987). Thus, to 27 the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged 28 violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question 1 || jurisdiction. See

Because Plaintiffs complaint does not present a federal 2 || question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 3 || U.S.C. § 14412 4 III. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 7 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 9 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 = 12 | DATED: November 8, 2021 C] () | (] Viper 4) 3 NN } Fipd MICHAEL W/FITZGERALD 14 UNITED STATES DISTR JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TT Defendant does not contend that subject matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity 28 || of citizenship.