Karen Logan v. Us Bank National Association
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14355
9th Cir.2013Background
- PTFA raises private-right-of-action question after Logan sued US Bank for injunctions and damages over a PTFA eviction notice and 90-day requirement.
- US Bank foreclosed on Logan’s Westlake Village property in June 2009 and served a three-day notice before an unlawful detainer action.
- Logan argued the UD action violated PTFA’s 90-day notice and protections for bona fide tenants; demurrer was overruled and removal attempts to federal court failed.
- Logan filed a federal complaint in December 2009 seeking injunctive relief and damages; the district court abstained under Younger v. Harris and dismissed for lack of a PTFA private right of action.
- The panel treated Logan’s allegations as true for jurisdictional purposes but held the PTFA does not create an implied private right of action, and Younger abstention was not warranted to justify dismissal.
- The court affirmed dismissal, ruling PTFA creates no private cause of action and that the district court correctly dismissed the damages claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PTFA implies a private right of action | Logan seeks private enforcement of PTFA provisions | Bank argues no implied private right of action exists | No private right of action implied |
| Whether Younger abstention applies | Federal action should proceed despite state UD action | State proceeding ongoing; Younger applies | Abstention not warranted; four-factor test not satisfied due to lack of important state interest |
| Whether the PTFA provides a private remedy via implied right of action under §702(a) | PTFA intended tenant protections, implying a remedy | Language/structure show no intent to create private remedy | No implied private remedy under PTFA |
| Whether the case is moot due to voluntary dismissal of state action | Damages claim remains live; injunctive relief moot | State action dismissal moots the action | Not moot for damages; live controversy remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (four-factor test for implied private rights of action (intent, class, purpose, preemption of state law))
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1979) (central inquiry is congressional intent to create a private right of action)
- Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (exception to abstention when federal action would enjoin state proceeding)
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (private rights/interruptions related to state judgments require respect for state processes)
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1982) (discretion in applying Younger to non-criminal proceedings)