Property Management Associates v. Grain

         IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

          PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Maria S. Grain (“Defendant”) on June 21, 2016. (Docket No. 1.) In the Complaint, plaintiff Property Management Associates (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single state law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant, appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         Federal courts are 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., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S.Ct. at 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318. If the complaint does not specify whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is “clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, the plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. at 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption.” Id. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (emphasis in original). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading, ” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).

         Here, the underlying Complaint contains only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant alleges that removal is proper because Plaintiff’s actions violate the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (the “PTFA”), 12 U.S.C. § 5220.

         Section 702(a) of the PTFA provides,

In the case of any foreclosure on . . . any dwelling or residential real property . . . any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to-

(1) the provision, by such successor in interest of a notice to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice; and

(2) the rights of any bona fide tenant, as of the date of such notice of foreclosure -

(A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease, except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale of the unit to a purchaser who will occupy the unit as a primary residence, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under paragraph (1); or

(B) without a lease or with a lease terminable at will under State law, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90 day notice under subsection (1), . . . .

         If a successor in interest violates the provisions of the PTFA, then a tenant may have a claim for the violation, but a successor in interest in a foreclosed property does not eject occupants by alleging a federal claim under the PTFA. Rather, the PTFA merely provides terms with which the successor in interest must comply. Accordingly, this action does not “arise under” the PTFA. Moreover, Defendant’s allegations concerning Plaintiff’s potential violations of the PTFA do not constitute a proper basis for removal, as neither a federal defense nor an actual or anticipated federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 61-62, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009).

         Additionally, this appears to be the third time that Defendant has filed a Notice of Removal for the same complaint. Defendant’s first Notice of Removal was filed on May 31, 2016, and was assigned case number CV 16-3785 PA (ASx). The Court remanded that case on June 6, 2016, because Defendant’s asserted federal defense pursuant to the PTFA did not establish a basis for removal. Defendant’s second Notice of Removal was filed on June 21, 2016, ...