Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00928/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00928-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGG HAGGART,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN D. GIBBS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19cv928-LAB (LL)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

In March 2019, Plaintiff Gregg Haggart filed this unlawful detainer action against the 

Defendant-Tenants in San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Defendants failed 

to pay rent and other expenses in violation of the parties’ lease agreement. See Dkt. 1-1. 

Defendants removed the case to this Court on May 17, 2019. See Dkt. 1. 

The Court is obligated to inquire into jurisdiction over removed actions and to remand 

cases where jurisdiction is lacking, sua sponte if necessary. See Mt. Healthy City School 

Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (holding that federal courts must inquire 

sua sponte whenever its jurisdiction is in doubt); Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)) (holding that district courts must remand removed 

case sua sponte if at any time before final judgment it appears that jurisdiction is lacking).

Defendants claim that Haggart cannot have them evicted without violating the 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”), and that this case therefore 

presents a federal question that gives rise to jurisdiction. But the PTFA does not create a 

Case 3:19-cv-00928-LAB-LL Document 3 Filed 05/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

private right of action; rather, it provides a defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. 

See Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal 

of the complaint because the PTFA “does not create a private right of action allowing 

[plaintiff] to enforce its requirements”). It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to 

federal court on the basis of a federal defense ... even if the defense is anticipated in the 

plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). To the extent 

Defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of 

federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. 

Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as 

artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

This case is REMANDED to San Diego County Superior Court. Defendants’ motion 

to proceed IFP is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt. 2. The clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00928-LAB-LL Document 3 Filed 05/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2