Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01578/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN BRADLEY, ATTORNEY IN 

FACT FOR NORMA G. BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM G. TAFF AND KAREN D. 

TAFF, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-CV-1578 TLN CKD PS

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants’ Notice of Removal and Motion to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Compl., ECF No. 1, 2.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The Court hereby REMANDS the action to 

the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, due to lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff Carolyn Bradley (“Plaintiff”) bought the property 

at 3152 Miramonte Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833 (“the Property”) at a trustee’s sale following 

foreclosure proceedings. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) The Complaint alleges that on June 9, 2015, the 

Defendants William G. Taff and Karen D. Taff (“Defendants”) were served a three-day written 

notice to vacate the Property and deliver up possession of the Property, in accordance with Cal. 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Civ. Pro. Code § 1161a(b)(3). (ECF No. 1 at 10.) Plaintiff claims that three days passed without 

Defendants’ compliance, and that Defendants continue to possess the Property without Plaintiff’s 

consent. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) 

Plaintiff commenced an action for unlawful detainer in the Superior Court of California, 

County of Sacramento, on June 15, 2015. On July 23, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis and a Notice of Removal in United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California. (ECF No. 1, 2.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is 

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

Defendants always have the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 

U.S. 974 (2005).

The “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 

presented on the face of the Plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. 

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 61–62 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants removed this case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 

Defendants argue that this case is a federal question under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Act of 2009 (“PTFA”).

1

 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 

Defendants state that the Plaintiff’s “Notice to Occupants to Vacate Premises failed to 

comply with the Tenants at Foreclosure Act [12 U.S.C. § 5220].” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s 

Complaint did not reference to the PTFA. The Complaint itself contains only a single claim for 

unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1 at 9–10). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal 

[question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 

Plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. The instant Complaint 

relies solely on California state law and does not mention expressly or impliedly 12 U.S.C. § 

5220. The Complaint does not state claims under the PTFA or any other federal law. The wellpleaded complaint rule makes the Plaintiff the master of his claim, so he may avoid federal 

jurisdiction by basing his claim exclusively on state law, as is the case here. Caterpillar, 482 

U.S. at 392.

Defendants allege the statute is at issue because the Plaintiff’s “Notice to Occupants to 

Vacate Premises” was defective and failed to comply with the PTCA. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8.) It 

seems Defendants mean to assert subject matter jurisdiction by alleging Plaintiff violated the 

PTFA.2 However, Defendants’ assertions are unavailing because removal cannot be based on a 

defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a federal question, whether filed in 

state court or federal court. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 49; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 

1042–43. While Defendants contend in the notice of removal that Plaintiff has violated a federal 

law, this assertion relates only to an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim, which is not 

considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. 

See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60–62. “[A] counterclaim – which appears as part of the defendants’

 

1

The court notes that the Plaintiff also moved to remand on the grounds that Defendants’ 

removal procedure was defective. However, the court declines to address Defendant’s removal

procedure because the suit should be remanded due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

2

In any event, the Ninth Circuit has held that no private right of action exists under the 

PTFA. Logan v. U.S. Nat. Assoc., 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). Further, “the PTFA is 

framed in terms of ‘protections’ for tenants, suggesting that it was intended to provide a defense 

in state eviction proceedings rather than a basis for offensive suits in federal courts.” Id. at 1173 

(emphasis added).

Case 2:15-cv-01578-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint – cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ 

jurisdiction.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 

(2002).

In summary, the state court Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for 

unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law and not under federal law. Thus, this action 

does not arise under federal law and no other grounds for federal jurisdiction are apparent. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal jurisdiction. See 

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the 

district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua 

sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendants have submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that he 

is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the Court hereby 

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court 

of California, County of Sacramento

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01578-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4