Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02942/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02942-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS

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

CREEKSIDE HOLDINGS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALERIE HERNANDEZ; MARINA 

VEGA; MARIA VEGA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On December 2, 2016, Valerie Hernandez (“Defendant”), a defendant in an 

unlawful detainer action originally filed in the Superior Court of California, County 

of San Diego, filed a Notice of Removal removing the action to this Court. 

(Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request 

for a sua sponte remand. (Pl.’s Opp’n 3, ECF No. 3.) The Court finds that 

Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to establish that this Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over the removed action, and accordingly REMANDS the 

action to state court. 

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “any civil action brought in a 

State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district 

Case 3:16-cv-02942-BTM-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS

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

court of the United States for the district court and division embracing the place 

where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and the removing defendant bears 

the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v. 

Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant asserts that removal is proper on the basis of federal question 

jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal 2.) She argues that Plaintiff’s complaint rests on 

federal law, namely the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009” (“PFTA”),

12 U.S.C. 5220. (Id.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that there is no federal 

question on the face of its complaint and that instead, Defendant is attempting to 

assert a federal defense. (Pl.’s Opp’n 2.) 

“Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally 

or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded 

complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that 

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial 

question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. Of State of Calif. V. Constr. Laborers 

Vacation Tr. for S. Calif., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Whether a case “arises 

under” federal law thus turns on the nature of the claims asserted in plaintiff’s 

complaint. See id. at 10 (“For better or worse . . . a defendant may not remove a 

case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case 

‘arises under’ federal law”). “A federal defense, however, is ‘inadequate to confer 

federal jurisdiction.’” Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(quoting Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)). 

Here, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting only a cause of action for unlawful 

detainer under California state law. The complaint therefore does not state a 

federal claim, nor does the asserted cause of action rest on federal law. 

Defendant’s allegations that Plaintiff violated the PFTA are, at most, a defense to 

Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. The PFTA is a federal statute that provides 

Case 3:16-cv-02942-BTM-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-2942-BTM-BGS

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

certain protections to tenants who reside in properties subject to foreclosure. 12 

U.S.C. 5220. However, the law is clear that federal defenses do not confer 

federal question jurisdiction. Dennis, 724 F.3d at 1253. Moreover, the Ninth 

Circuit has held that the PFTA does not create a private right of action. Logan v. 

U.S. Bank N.A., 722 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper, and the Court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. 

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded 

to state court.”). Defendant has failed to establish this Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to the 

Superior Court of San Diego, County of San Diego. 

Defendant also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Because the Court remands this action to state court, Defendant’s motion is 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02942-BTM-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 3