Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,037 chars

22
6. Preemption
       Appellants' amici curiae assert that tenants' rights under section 702 of the PTFA
preempt less protective state law. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that
the supremacy clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution "may entail pre-emption of
state law either by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and
state law. [Citations.]" (New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans
v. Travelers Ins. Co. (1995) 514 U.S. 645, 654 [115 S.Ct. 1671].) "[Preemption]
principles are not inapplicable . . . simply because real property law is a matter of special
concern to the States: 'The relative importance to the State of its own law is not material
when there is a conflict with a valid federal law, for the Framers of our Constitution
provided that the federal law must prevail.' [Citations.]" (Fidelity Federal Sav. and Loan
Ass'n v. de la Cuesta (1982) 458 U.S. 141, 153 [102 S.Ct. 3014].) The only reasonable
conclusion with respect to the PTFA is that the Congress intended to supplant less
protective state law but not "any State or local law that provides longer time periods or
additional protections for tenants." (PTFA, § 702, subd. (a).) Accordingly, assuming the
validity of the PTFA, the Act prevails over state law that would otherwise extinguish a
bona fide lease within the meaning of the Act and the immediate successor in interest in
foreclosed property takes subject to a bona fide tenancy for a term but it retains the power
to terminate the lease as provided by the Act.
7. No Federal Private Right of Action
       Appellants do not dispute that the PTFA did not create a private cause of action
under federal law. (See e.g. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., supra, 2010 WL
2179885, 4; see also Logan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n (9th Cir. 2013) 2013 WL 3614465, 1
[PTFA does not create a private right of action].) The lack of federal private cause of
action under the PTFA, however, does not determine state law claims in state courts.

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text