Osuna v. Salinas
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's removal of a state unlawful detainer action based on the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA). The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and ordered the case remanded to state court because the PTFA does not create a private right of action to support federal subject matter jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee) denied as moot“Garcia’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly denied the motion as moot because it resolved the underlying jurisdictional defect by remanding the case. When a case is remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, any pending motions regarding the federal court's procedural requirements (such as IFP status) become moot. |
Case remanded to state court“the Clerk is directed to REMAND and close this case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that the PTFA does not create a private right of action, citing Ninth Circuit precedent (Logan v. U.S. Bank). Since the PTFA can only serve as a defense in state court and not as a basis for an offensive federal suit, the plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction. Additionally, the court noted defects in the removal procedure (lack of consent from all defendants), further supporting the remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies that the PTFA does not create a private right of action, relying on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Logan). It also correctly notes the procedural defect regarding the consent of all defendants required for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). The conclusion to remand follows logically from the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the failure to meet the burden of proof for removal.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Manual OSUNA, Case No.: 24-cv-0330-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION AS MOOT AND REMANDING CASE 5 v. 6 Mireya SALINAS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Alex Garcia has, without the assistance of an attorney, removed a state unlawful- 10 detainer action purportedly under federal-question jurisdiction. He claims that this Court 11 has jurisdiction under section 702(a) of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. But that 12 section of the PTFA “neither explicitly nor impliedly creates a private right of action” 13 under federal law. Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn., 722 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2013). 14 “The PTFA is framed in terms of ‘protections’ for tenants, suggesting that it was intended 15 to provide a defense in state eviction proceedings rather than a basis for offensive suits in 16 federal court.” Id. at 1173. So, “[t]o the extent any issues presented by the PTFA would 17 come into play in the case, they would do so as a defense.” Missouri & Bundy Hous. L.P. 18 v. Annette R. Ross, et al., No. CV 23-9620-GW-SSCX, 2023 WL 9419590, at *1 (C.D. 19 Cal. Dec. 1, 2023). And a “defense based in Federal law cannot be the basis for a removal 20 based upon a federal question.” Missouri & Bundy, 2023 WL 9419590, at *1; accord 21 Bridge WF CA Crystal View LP v. Salazar, No. SACV2301734CJCKESX, 2023 WL 22 7308127, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2023) (“The PTFA is at most a defense to the unlawful 23 detainer action, and thus does not confer subject matter jurisdiction.”). 24 There are other problems with the removal. For instance, it’s unclear that Garcia is 25 a defendant in the action below or, more importantly, has received the consent of all 26 defendants to remove the case. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b)(2)(A) (“[A]ll defendants who 27 have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action”). 28 But the Court need not belabor the point. Since it is Garcia’s burden to show that this Court I |}can exercise jurisdiction, and he has failed to meet that burden on several grounds, the 2 || Clerk is directed to REMAND and close this case. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 3 || F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is upon 4 ||the party seeking removal and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 5 jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)). Garcia’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee 6 |}is DENIED as moot. 7 Dated: February 23, 2024 9 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28