Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02118/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a)rp Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1 

3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD 

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 

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 

2016, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

IGOR SALVA, and DOES 1-10, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD 

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT 

On September 12, 2018, Defendant Igor Salva, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of 

removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court for the State of 

California, County of San Diego. ECF No. 1. Based on the reasoning below, the Court 

sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l 

Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power authorized by the 

Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 

(1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter 

jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 

83, 93–94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD Document 5 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD 

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

1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 

can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 

1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, 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. Construction 

Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983). Alternatively, a 

federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different 

states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘wellpleaded 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, 482 U.S. at 392. “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the 

party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 

the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In the notice of removal, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a 

notice which expressly references and incorporates a federal statute, Protecting Tenants at 

Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 (“PTFA”). ECF No. 1 at 3. However, a 

review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff Breckenridge Property 

Fund 2016, LLC, alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under California 

state law, and does not invoke the PTFA. 

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

Young, 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, No. 

Case 3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD Document 5 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD 

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

17cv893-CAB-AGS, 2017 WL 1735169, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2017). Here, the 

unlawful detainer action was filed on April 24, 2018, and there is no indication that any 

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

2014. Plaintiff became the owner of the subject property on October 5, 2017, after the 

PTFA expired. 

 Finally, 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 

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.”). 

 Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is without 

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

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the San Diego 

County Superior Court for the State of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 17, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-02118-GPC-MDD Document 5 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3