William Penn Ventures, LLC v. Billy Lamb
2:19-cv-09438
C.D. Cal.Nov 6, 2019Background
- Plaintiff William Penn Ventures filed an unlawful detainer action in California state court seeking possession of 2208 W. 8th St., Apt. 531, Los Angeles; defendant Billy Lamb allegedly remained in possession after a lease and month-to-month tenancy.
- Original lease began March 10, 2014 for 12 months; rent later increased under local rent control to $723.98/month; plaintiff alleged past-due rent of $723.98 and ongoing damages at $24.13/day.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court on November 1, 2019, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on federal issues raised in his defenses and a demurrer invoking the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (PTFA).
- Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single state-law unlawful detainer claim; no federal claim is pleaded on the face of the complaint.
- The PTFA expired December 31, 2014 and does not create a private right of action; at most it supplies a defense in state unlawful detainer proceedings.
- The complaint’s damages are plainly below the $75,000 amount-in-controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal question exists to support removal | Complaint asserts only state-law unlawful detainer | Federal issues arise from Defendant’s answer/demurrer and defenses | No federal-question jurisdiction; complaint presents no federal issue on its face |
| Whether the PTFA supplies a federal basis for jurisdiction | PTFA not pled; UD is state claim | PTFA defense and demurrer invoke federal law (PTFA) | PTFA does not create federal-question jurisdiction and expired in 2014; it is only a defense |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Amount demanded is under $10,000 | Defendant offered no plausible claim that damages exceed $75,000 | No diversity jurisdiction; amount-in-controversy not met |
| Burden and presumption on removal | N/A | Removing party must prove jurisdiction exists | Removal fails; strong presumption against removal and defendant did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court must always ensure it has subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (no notice-and-opportunity requirement when dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant bears burden to prove federal jurisdiction for removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal-question jurisdiction depends on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint)
- Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 722 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (PTFA does not create a private right of action)