Parvis Razavian et al v. Darwin Robinson et al
Filing
5
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: As the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court REMANDS the matter to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103) (am)
<![CDATA[
PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 12-00716 VAP (OPx)
Date: May 30, 2012
Title:
PARVIS RAZAVIAN -v- DARWIN ROBINSON, et al.
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None
PROCEEDINGS:
None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)
On May 7, 2012, Defendant Carmen Harris removed this action from the
California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. (See Not. of Removal
(Doc. No. 1).) Defendant alleges the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear
this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff Parvis Razavian's state
unlawful detainer claim is actually an artfully pled federal ejectment action under the
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act ("PTFA"), 12 U.S.C. § 5220 note.
Defendant's argument lacks merit; for the following reasons, the Court REMANDS
the action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk __md___
Page 1
EDCV 12-00716 VAP (OPx)
PARVIS RAZAVIAN v. DARWIN ROBINSON, DOES I THRU III, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of May 30, 2012
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v.
Federman–Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In
re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal
court."). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);
FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an
independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the action.")
Defendant alleges the basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction, under
28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff’s claims "arise under" federal law. (See Not. of
Removal ¶ 5.) From the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for
unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.
Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a defendant may not
remove a case to federal court unless the basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on
the face of the complaint). Defendant argues that Congress intended to preempt
state law unlawful detainer claims when it enacted the PTFA; as such, Plaintiff has
no California state law action to bring – only a federal action, prescribed by the
PTFA. (See Not. of Removal ¶¶ 13-14.)
"[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system,"
courts "have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state law
causes of action." Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996). "In all preemption cases, and particularly those in which Congress has 'legislated . . . in a field
which the States have traditionally occupied, we start with the presumption that the
historic police powers of the States were not superseded by the Federal Act unless
that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.'" Id. (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe
Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). This Court therefore begins its analysis
with the observation that "[c]oncepts of real property are deeply rooted in state
traditions, customs, habits, and laws." Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Beaver Cty., 328 U.S.
204, 209 (1946). While Defendant's Notice of Removal describes Congress's intent
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk __md___
Page 2
EDCV 12-00716 VAP (OPx)
PARVIS RAZAVIAN v. DARWIN ROBINSON, DOES I THRU III, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of May 30, 2012
"to occupy the field and break tradition, with a bold new law intended to protect
tenants . . . " (Not. of Removal ¶ 12(d)), there is simply no evidence of Congress's
intent to create a federal cause of action, supplanting states' unlawful detainer laws.
Indeed, the PTFA contains no "action" that a plaintiff could bring to affect an
ejectment; it merely sets forth "basic protections . . . for tenants in every State,
unless States have laws or practices that provide greater protections." 155 Cong.
Rec. S8978 (daily ed. Aug. 6, 2009) (statement of Sen. Dodd). If Congress intended
the PTFA to preempt state law, then the PTFA would also eviscerate more
protective state laws; instead, as Senator Dodd observed, the PTFA gives way to
such laws. See, e.g., Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 574-79 (2009) (observing that
state tort law is complementary of, rather than precluded by, federal drug labeling
requirements).
Rather than provide a federal cause of action, the PTFA offers a federal law
defense to state law unlawful detainer actions. Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No.
CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010).
Existence of only a federal law defense cannot confer federal question jurisdiction on
the Court, and therefore may not be the basis for removal of an action. Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Accordingly, Defendant cannot invoke
the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
As the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court
REMANDS the matter to the California Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk __md___
Page 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
