Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01872-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John-Raymond Nichols, pro per

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael A. Bosco, Jr., et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-01872-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to remand (doc. 11), defendants Wells Fargo

Bank and John G. Stumpf's (collectively "the Wells Fargo defendants") response (doc. 21),

plaintiff's reply (doc. 38), plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint (doc. 17), and

the Wells Fargo defendant's response (doc. 35).

Plaintiff filed this action on August 25, 2010 in the Superior Court of Arizona in

Maricopa County (doc. 1, ex. A). The complaint named several national banks, their

officers, and the foreclosure trustee, and asserted claims of fraud, lack of standing to

foreclose, and violations of various federal statutes including: (1) the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ("RESPA"); (2) the Truth in Lending Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA"); and (3) the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681

("FCRA"). The Wells Fargo defendants removed the case to this court on September 1, 2010

(doc. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on September 8, 2010 arguing that we lack

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 43 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 We note that at this time plaintiff has filed a second motion to amend his complaint

(doc. 39). Because plaintiff has exhausted his one amended complaint as a matter of right,

we will address that motion when it is ripe according to Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P..

- 2 -

jurisdiction because: (1) state law claims predominate over the "mere possibility of federal

questions;" (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) precludes removal because defendant Michael A. Bosco

resides in Arizona; and (3) we cannot assume jurisdiction over the State of Arizona. (Motion

to Remand at 7). On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his

complaint (doc. 17). The proposed amended complaint makes no material changes other than

substituting certain defendants. The Wells Fargo defendants do not oppose it (doc. 35).

I. Motion to Amend

Rule 15(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. permits a party to amend its pleading once as a matter

of right within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.. Plaintiff

filed his first motion for leave to amend within 21 days of such a motion and therefore was

permitted to amend his complaint without leave of court. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for

leave to amend his complaint is granted.1

II. Motion to Remand

Plaintiff challenges the Wells Fargo defendants' removal based on lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, which he may do at any time before final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Except where Congress expressly provides otherwise, a defendant may remove a civil action

if the federal district court would have original jurisdiction. § 1441(a). District courts have

original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and

diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. Defendants, who bear the burden of showing that

removal was proper, see Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir.

2006), assert that we have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to both § 1331 and § 1332. 

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Plaintiff argues that remand is necessary because state law claims predominate over

the mere "possibility of federal questions" raised in his complaint. (Motion to Remand at 7).

28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal district courts "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 43 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Here, plaintiff's complaint

alleges violations of various federal statutes including RESPA, TILA, and the FCRA. That

more than raises a mere "possibility of federal questions." Accordingly, we have subject

matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to § 1331.

We also may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims of

fraud and a lack of standing to foreclose because they "are so related to claims in the action

. . . that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States

Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff's claims under the various federal consumerlending statutes relate directly to the subject of this entire lawsuit, defendants' ability to

foreclose. Finally, we find no cause to remand the state law claims as a matter of discretion

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), as the claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law,

nor do they substantially predominate over federal claims. Accordingly, we have federal

question and supplemental jurisdiction over this case, and therefore need not address the

issue of diversity jurisdiction at this time. 

In addition, we reject plaintiff's grounds for denying removal based on our inability

to exercise jurisdiction over the State of Arizona. The State of Arizona is not a defendant in

this action. Finally, we refuse to award sanctions or recommend bar discipline against the

Wells Fargo defendants' attorneys due to an improperly motivated request for removal.

Because removal was proper, there is no basis for sanctions.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for leave to file his

first amended complaint (doc. 17). Plaintiff has fourteen days to file and serve the amended

pleading on all parties under LRCiv. 15.1 and Rule 5, Fed. R. Civ. P..

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to remand (doc. 11).

DATED this 18th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01872-FJM Document 43 Filed 10/18/10 Page 3 of 3