Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00552/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00552-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a)rp Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

18-cv-1112-AJB-NNLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Robert Unser,

Plaintiff,

v.

Western Riverside Council of 

Governments, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1112-AJB-NNLS

ORDER GRANTING RENOVATE 

AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. No. 40), and 

DENYING AS MOOT REVERSE 

MORTGAGE’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS (Doc. No. 25)

Before the Court is Defendant Renovate America, Inc.’s dismissal motion based on 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 5.) Unser’s sole federal claim rests on 

16 C.F.R. § 429.1, which deems a door-to-door sale unfair or deceptive if the seller does 

not comply with enumerated requirements. However, Renovate asserts “[t]here is no 

colorable right to a remedy under 16 C.F.R. § 429.1. . . .” (Id. at 6.) While the Ninth Circuit 

has not yet addressed this claim, Renovate bases its argument on several district court 

holdings, as well as a recently-decided decision on this very issue brought by plaintiff’s 

counsel in this district. (Doc. No. 40-3, Rojas v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc., 18-cv-579-

CAB-KSC.) In that case, Judge Bencivengo held “there is no private right of action to sue 

for violation of the FTC Act. . . . Plaintiffs first claim for violation for 16 C.F.R. § 429.1, 

therefore, does not assert a colorable right to a remedy obtainable by Plaintiffs via this 

Case 3:18-cv-00552-AJB-MDD Document 52 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-1112-AJB-NNLS

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

lawsuit and cannot serve as a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction.” 

(Id. at 2.) In response, Unser filed a notice of non-opposition agreeing he could not bring a 

claim under 16 C.F.R. § 429.1 and requesting the Court dismiss the action for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction so he can file his claims in state court. (Doc. No. 44 at 2.) 

Following Unser’s non-opposition, co-defendant Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. 

(“RMS”) filed a response requesting the Court dismiss the co-defendants1and retain 

diversity jurisdiction over Unser’s state law claims. (Doc. No. 46 at 3.) However, Unser’s 

complaint fails to allege diversity jurisdiction, and even if it existed, the Court declines to 

reshape Unser’s complaint and ignore his non-opposition in dismissing his case. 

Based on Unser’s non-opposition and Judge Bencivengo’s reasoned holding in 

Rojas, the Court GRANTS Renovate’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 40), VACATES the August 9, 2018 motion hearing, and

DISMISSES Unser’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, RMS’ dismissal motion 

is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. No. 25.) The Court DIRECTS the Court Clerk to close the 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2018

 

1 These defendants include: “Renovate, Western Riverside Counsel of Governments, 

California Statewide Community Development Authority, Renew Financial Group, LLC,

Renew Financial, LLC, Renew Financial I, LLC, Renew Financial Group, LLC, 

Renewable Funding, LLC, Quality Home Renovators, Inc., the Western Surety Bond

Company, and Does 1 through 10.” (Doc. No. 46 at 2, fn.1).

Case 3:18-cv-00552-AJB-MDD Document 52 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2