Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01341/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1443(1) Rent, Lease &amp; Ejectment

---

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

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF C,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDY BILOTTI; AND DOES 1 TO 6 

INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1341 TLN AC (PS)

ORDER

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

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s 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 November 24, 2014, Plaintiff bought the property at 3333 Serra Way, 

Sacramento, CA 95816 (“the Property”) at a trustee’s sale following foreclosure proceedings. 

(Compl., ECF No. 1 at 13-14.) The Complaint alleges that on December 12, 2014, Defendant 

was served a three-day written notice to vacate the Property and deliver up possession of the 

Property, in accordance with Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1162. (ECF No. 1 at 14-15.) Plaintiff claims 

Case 2:15-cv-01341-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 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

that three days passed without Defendant’s compliance, and that Defendant continues to possess 

the Property without Plaintiff’s consent. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) 

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

County of Sacramento, on December 26, 2014. On June 23, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis and a Notice of Removal in this Court. 

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 

defendant always has 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 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

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

Defendant argues that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”) gives rise to a

federal question by identifying two ways in which the statute is drawn into controversy in the 

instant case. 

Case 2:15-cv-01341-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 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

Defendant states that Plaintiff’s claim “is based upon a notice which expressly references 

and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201.” (ECF 

No. 1 at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s reference to the PTFA is contained in Exhibit B of Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

which contains the notice given to defendants on December 12, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 21–24.) 

The document states it constitutes a notice to vacate within the meaning of the federal PTFA and 

informs the defendants of available resources should they have questions regarding their rights.

However, the Complaint itself contains only a single claim for unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1 at 

13–16.) 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. § 5201. The Complaint does not state claims under 

the PTFA or any other federal law. The well-pleaded 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.

Defendant alleges the statute is at issue because it provides for a ninety day notice period 

prior to filing a state eviction proceeding and Plaintiff filed suit before the expiration of the ninety 

day period. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7.) It seems Defendant means to assert subject matter jurisdiction by 

alleging plaintiff violated the PTFA.

1

 However, 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 Defendant contends 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 defendant’s 

 

1

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-01341-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 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

Defendant has 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 Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands the action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01341-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 4