Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01389/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01389-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

17-cv-1389-GPC(KSC)

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

MISSION CAPITAL PROPERTIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEAN DOMINGUEZ, PAIGE 

DOMINGUEZ and DOES 1 to 10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-1389-GPC(KSC)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT

On July 10, 2017, Defendants Sean Dominguez and Paige Dominguez

(“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this unlawful detainer 

action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. Based 

on the reasoning below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Discussion

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this 

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 

asserting jurisdiction.” Id. It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the 

merits of any dispute until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to 

adjudicate the issues presented. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 

Case 3:17-cv-01389-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-1389-GPC(KSC)

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

94-95 (1988). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their 

jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to 

[its] existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 

278 (1977) (citations omitted). 

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332. Here, Defendants assert federal question jurisdiction. For an action to be removed 

on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that 

federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily 

depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of 

Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). 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 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 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.” Id. at 393. 

A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff Mission 

Capital Properties, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer 

under California state law. In the notice of removal, Defendants argue that a federal 

statute, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure (“PTFA”)1, applies to their case and thus, 

 

1 The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 states that:

. . . . In the case of any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage loan or on any 

dwelling or residential real property after the date of enactment of this title, any 

immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall 

assume such interest subject to—

Case 3:17-cv-01389-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-1389-GPC(KSC)

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

provides the Court with federal question jurisdiction. 

Foremost, “the PTFA expired on December 31, 2014.” Fairview Tasman LLC v. 

Young, Case No. 15cv5493-LHK, 2016 WL 199060, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2016) 

(citing Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-

203, 124 Stat. 1376, 2204 (2010) (setting date of expiration)); see also Franks v. Franks, 

Case No. 17cv893-CAB-AGS, 2017 WL 1735169, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2017). Here, 

the unlawful detainer action was filed on March 9, 2017, and there is no indication that 

any of the facts constituting the unlawful detainer action occurred prior to December 31, 

2014. In fact, Plaintiff became the owner of the subject property on March 1, 2017, after 

the PTFA expired. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 9.

2

) However, even if the PTFA applied, 

Defendants’ argument is still without merit.

The PTFA does not create a cause of action for a tenant. Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l

Ass'n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2013). In Logan, the court analyzed the 

Congressional record to determine that Congress showed no implicit or explicit intent to 

create a cause of action under the PTFA. Id; see also Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l

Trust Co., No. 09-06096 PVT, 2010 WL 2179885 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2010). The Ninth 

Circuit held that the PTFA neither explicitly nor implicitly creates a cause of action, but 

 

(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 each notice of 

foreclosure—

(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)[.]

See Pub. L. No. 111– 22, § 702, 123 Stat. 1632, 1660-61 (2009). The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure 

Act was enacted to provide certain protections to tenants of foreclosed properties, including the right to 

live on the foreclosed property for the duration of the lease and the right to receive a 90 day notice to 

vacate. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., No. 09-06096 PVT, 2010 WL 2179885, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

May 26, 2010) (holding that the PTFA does not create a private right of action but rather created 

protections for tenants in state court proceedings.). 

2 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

Case 3:17-cv-01389-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-1389-GPC(KSC)

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

instead explained that the PTFA is a defense in California state eviction proceedings.

Logan, 722 F.3d at 1173. Therefore, the PTFA does not create a cause of action that 

could have originally been brought in federal court, and as a defense, it is insufficient to 

confer subject matter jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 393 (“a case may not 

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense”).

Thus, Defendants’ assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is without merit

and Plaintiff’s state law unlawful detainer claim is not removable.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior 

Court of the State of California for San Diego County. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01389-GPC-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4