(UD)(PS)Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Sherzad ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Wells Fargo Bank, NA, as trustee for structured No. 2:22-cv-01030-KJM-DB asset mortgage investments II Inc. Bear Stearns 12 mortgage funding trust 2006-AR2, Certificates ORDER 13 Series 2006-AR2, 14 Plaintiff, 15 Vv. 16 | Atall Sherzad and Mizhgan Alam, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendants removed this unlawful detainer action, based on federal question jurisdiction. 20 | For the reasons below, the court sua sponte raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and 21 | remands this matter. 22 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 23 | initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 24 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 25 | jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here 26 | defendant only asserts federal question jurisdiction. See generally Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1. 27 Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions 28 | arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 1 the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the 2 plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 3 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 4 cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 5 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant 6 has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 7 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 8 remanded. . . .”); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 9 Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 10 Defendants assert that the plaintiff’s complaint invokes the Protecting Tenants at 11 Foreclosure Act (PTFA), 12 U.S.C. § 5201. Not. of Removal ¶ 7. However, the PTFA “neither 12 explicitly nor impliedly creates a private right of action” for parties such as defendants to enforce. 13 Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2013). And courts have held the 14 statute does not provide “a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. 15 Co. v. Eaddy, No. 12-1845, 2012 WL 4173987, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (citations 16 omitted); WNT, Inc. v. Awojuola, No. 19-216, 2019 WL 3712128, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) 17 (a “[d]efendant’s assertion of a PTFA defense in the notice of removal does not establish federal 18 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”). Here, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear 19 this case. 20 Thus, the court remands this matter to state court. 21 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: June 21, 2022.