Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Alison Wendy Winston, 2:11-cv-09995

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant Alison Winston in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Removal to federal court occurred on December 1, 2011, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.
Plaintiff moved to remand on February 6, 2012; hearing set for April 16, 2012.
Defendant, appearing pro se, argued the action raised a federal question under PTFA.
Court sua sponte determined lack of subject matter jurisdiction and addressed Rule 11 sanctions and fee issues.
Court remanded the action to the Superior Court, Santa Monica Courthouse (Case No. 11U0230G).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the action arise under federal law?	Winston asserts federal question under PTFA.	Winston relies on federal defense under PTFA.	No federal question; remand proper.
Whether removal was proper based on a federal defense	Plaintiff contends removal valid due to federal defense.	Defense adequate to create jurisdiction.	Defense does not create jurisdiction.
Rule 11 sanctions are warranted?	Plaintiff seeks sanctions for improper removal.	N/A or insufficient justification provided.	Sanctions denied.
Safe harbor compliance for Rule 11 motion	N/A	N/A	Safe harbor not satisfied; no sanctions.
Award of fees for improper removal	N/A	N/A	No attorney’s fees awarded; discretion reserved.

K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal-question jurisdiction cannot hinge on defenses)
Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2002) (defenses alone do not establish jurisdiction)
Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 293 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002) (safe harbor requirement for Rule 11 sanctions)
Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2001) (service of motion is required for safe harbor)