Logan v. U.S. Bank

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-16-2013
  • Case #: 10-55671
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge McKeown for the Court; Circuit Judge Smith, Jr., and District Judge Bell
  • Full Text Opinion

Under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, there is no private right of action, and the regulation of eviction proceedings “does not implicate an important state interest.”

U.S. Bank National Association (“US Bank”) brought an unlawful detainer action against Karen Logan in state court. In response, Logan sought injunctive relief and damages, arguing that US Bank did not give the required 90-day notice to vacate a foreclosed property as required by the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA” or “the Act”). After Logan unsuccessfully attempted to remove the detainer action to federal court, Logan instead filed her claim in federal court. The district court dismissed Logan’s claim, reasoning that the decision in Younger v. Harris required the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction because Logan was attempting to enjoin an action currently before a state court that was contemporaneous with the action she filed in federal court. Further, the district court decided that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Logan’s action under the PTFA because the Act has no prevision for a private right of action. As an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that a private right of action under the PTFA does not exist. After reviewing the language, structure, and legislative history of the Act, the panel could not infer any congressional intent that would create a private right of action under the Act. Additionally, regarding Younger, the panel disagreed with the district court and decided to follow the Third Circuit, finding that the regulation of eviction proceedings “does not implicate an important state interest.” AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search