IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 8, 2013
HPROF, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
SUSAN CAMERON, AND ANTHONY CAMERON DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Alameda. Defendants, representing themselves, subsequently 21 purported to remove the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants 22 allege that "Plaintiff has actually filed a Federal Question action in State Court." (Dkt. No. 1 a 2.) 23
In particular, they explain that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 ("PTFA"), 12 24 U.S.C. § 5220, preempts state law as to bona fide residential tenants of foreclosed landlords. (Id.) 25
Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear the burden of establishing 26 that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal 27 jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, when a case is 28 removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). The 2 Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and has determined that federal question jurisdiction does 3 not exist. 4
"Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the face of a well- 5 pleaded complaint." ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, 2012 WL 2077311 *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). The 6 removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. Therefore, this Court does 7 not have federal question jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 2077311 at *1. That Defendants 8 raise defenses and preemption arguments related to the PTFA is irrelevant; a defendant cannot create 9 federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims, raising defenses, or alleging ordinary 10 preemption. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 826, 830-31 (2002); Valles v. 11 Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) ("A federal law defense to a state-law claim 12 does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint."); Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sue Lin Poh, 2012 WL 14 3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) (remanding removed unlawful detainer action). 15
Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not 16 be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. In particular, if Defendants believe that this 17 Court has subject matter jurisdiction, they shall file a response in writing by April 22, 2013 that 18 demonstrates why this Court has jurisdiction. Defendants are warned that their failure to file a 19 response will result in remand of this action to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. 20 21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.