Opinion
CASE NO. CV 12-8722-UA (DUTYx)
10-22-2012
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Plaintiff, v. EASHAN DOROUDI, ET AL., Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For the following reasons, the motion is denied and the action is remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On October 11, 2012, Defendants, proceeding pro se, lodged a Notice of Removal, accompanied by a request to proceed IFP, attempting to remove this unlawful detainer action from state court to federal court. Defendants alleged federal jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 5220, the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. Defendants, however, are mistaken. There is no federal jurisdiction under § 5220 because Congress did not create a private right of action when it enacted that statute. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (CD. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010); Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d 1113, 1115-17 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim because 12 U.S.C. §§ 5201-5261 did not create a private right of action) (citation omitted). Further, and importantly, unlawful detainer actions are creatures of state law. Id. at 1116. Thus, even assuming that Defendants wanted to raise a federal defense to the unlawful detainer action, that would not convert this case into a federal case. See, e.g., Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining federal law defense does not create federal jurisdiction if complaint on its face does not present federal question); Wescom Credit Union, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (holding, even if the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act offers a federal defense, it does not confer federal-question jurisdiction).
The Court notes that there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 133 2 because the amount in controversy in the underlying unlawful detainer action is less than $10,000, excluding interest and costs. (See Complaint, attached to Notice of Removal, at 1.)
Finally, because there is obviously no federal jurisdiction over this case, removal is improper and it is, therefore, subject to remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
GEORGE H. KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented by: _______________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE