“Article III generally 3 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it 4 considers the merits of a case”
How later courts described this case
- “Article III generally 3 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it 4 considers the merits of a case”
- stating that whether a case arises under federal law 2 must be established based on the plaintiff’s complaint
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No.: 23-cv-1889-WQH-AHG
Plaintiff,
12 ORDER
v.
13
14 LEVI SANTIAGO and DOES 1-
100, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
HAYES, Judge:
17
On October 16, 2023, Hailey Brooks (“Brooks”), proceeding pro se, removed the
18
above-titled action to this Court from the Superior Court of California, Case No. 37-2023-
19
00013363-CL-UD-CTL. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Brooks states that she is a defendant in this
20
action and “is a bona fide tenant under the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.’” Id. at
21
2. Brooks attached to the Notice of Removal the first page of an unlawful detainer
22
complaint filed in state court that lists “Flagstar Bank, N.A.” as Plaintiff and “Levi Santiago
23
and Does 1-100” as Defendants. Id. at 10.
24
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” that “possess only that power
25
authorized” by the United States Constitution and federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
26
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, federal courts “have an
27
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
28
1 absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006);
2 see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“Article III generally
3 requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before it
4 considers the merits of a case”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
5 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The burden
6 of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction “rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.”
7 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove an action
8 filed in state court to federal court if the federal court would have original subject matter
9 jurisdiction over the action.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243
10 (9th Cir. 2009). District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
11 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For an action to
12 “arise under” federal law, as is asserted by Brooks in this case, “[a] right or immunity
13 created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential
14 one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction
15 Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (quoting Gully v. First Nat’l
16 Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936)).
17 Based upon the first page of the initiating document in the state court, Brooks is not
18 a party to this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 only permits removal by a defendant. See 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action
20 brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
21 jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants….”); Am. Int’l
22 Underwriters, (Philippines), Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1240 (9th Cir. 1988)
23 (“The right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”).
24 Brooks has not pointed to any authority indicating that she may be transformed into a
25 defendant in this case. Further, Brooks has not attached the entirety of the complaint in the
26 state court proceeding, which is necessary for the Court to assess the existence of subject
27 matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (requiring the removing party to file “a copy of
28 all process, pleadings, and orders” served in the underlying action in the district court);
1 Franchise Tax Bd.., 463 U.S. at 10 (stating that whether a case arises under federal law
2 must be established based on the plaintiff’s complaint). In addition, Brooks removes this
3 action based upon federal question jurisdiction. The first page of the state court complaint,
4 see ECF No. 1. at 10, states that the action is an unlawful detainer action, which is a cause
5 of action that is purely a matter of state law. See Muhammad v. N. Richmond Senior Hous.,
6 Inc., No. 15-cv-00629-WHO, 2015 WL 1154209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)
7 (“California federal courts have repeatedly held that unlawful detainer cases brought under
8 California’s unlawful detainer statute do not raise federal questions.”); Fed. Nat’l. Mortg.
9 Ass’n v. Enshiwat, No. CV 12-631 CAS (CWx), 2012 WL 683106, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
10 2, 2012) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.”);
11 Franks v. Franks, No. 3:17-CV-893-CAB-AGS, 2017 WL 1735169, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May
12 4, 2017) (same); see also Sec. of Veterans Affairs v. Smith, 18cv598-MMA (BLM), 2018
13 WL 1444583, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) (collecting federal district court cases that
14 have held a Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act defense “cannot serve as a basis for
15 removal”).
16 Additionally, Brooks filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF
17 No. 2.) Brooks states in her application that, in total, she has $0.00 of income per month.
18 Id. at 1. However, Brooks attached to her Notice of Removal a state court fee waiver form,
19 which states that she is employed as a waitress at The Yellow Deli – Valley Center and
20 receives food stamps. (ECF No. 1 at 13.) It appears that Brooks has not accurately
21 completed the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hailey Brooks is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
23 why this action should not be remanded to state court for a lack of subject matter
24 jurisdiction. Brooks must file a response to this Order within fourteen (14) days of the
25 date this Order is filed. In the response, Brooks must do the following: (a) demonstrate
26 subject matter jurisdiction, (b) attach a copy of the entire state court complaint and all other
27 “process, pleadings, and orders” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, and (c) either pay the filing
28 fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accurately and entirely
| |}completed. If Brooks fails to timely demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction and pay the
2 || filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will order that
3 || this action be remanded to state court.
4 Dated: October 30, 2023 itt Z. A a
5 Hon. William Q. Hayes
6 United States District Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28