Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03937/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03937-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIAMOND REAL ESTATE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03937-HSG 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 

MOTION TO DISMISS TO ALLOW 

CORPORATE PLAINTIFF DIAMOND 

REAL ESTATE TO OBTAIN 

COUNSEL; ORDERING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Before the Court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Porfirio Jorque, Editha Palancia, and 

Diamond Real Estate’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) complaint filed by Defendants American 

Brokers Conduit, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), American Home Mortgage Assets, 

Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006-3, Mortgage-Backed 

Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-3 (“CitiBank”), American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. 

(“AHMS”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), American Home 

Mortgage Acceptance, and Western Progressive, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants 

contend that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the present cause of action, and, in the alternative, 

otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 7 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs filed an opposition, Dkt. No. 26 (“Opp.”), 

Defendants replied, Dkt. No. 27 (“Reply”), and Plaintiffs filed a “Response” to Defendants’ reply, 

Dkt. No. 29 (“Response”).

I. DISCUSSION

A. Diamond Real Estate

A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. See U.S. v. High

Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993); see also N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-9(b) (“A 

Case 4:16-cv-03937-HSG Document 43 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through 

a member of the bar of this Court.”). A “case cannot be dismissed against a corporate entity on 

substantive grounds when the corporate entity has not properly appeared.” Jaguar Assocs. Grp. v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., No. C-07-5022 PVT, 2007 WL 4365488, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2007). 

Diamond Real Estate is a corporation that is unrepresented by an attorney. See Opp. at 7 (stating 

that “Plaintiffs . . . are In Pro Per”). An attorney “specially appeared” on behalf of Diamond Real 

Estate at an ADR phone conference, but represented that he had not yet been retained by 

Diamond. Because corporations cannot represent themselves in federal courts, Diamond lacks 

standing to bring this claim. The Court therefore CONTINUES the motion hearing previously set 

for November 17, 2016 to January 19, 2017 to allow Diamond Real Estate time to retain counsel. 

The Court ORDERS Diamond to file a declaration stating that it has hired counsel no later than 

December 16, 2016.

B. Jorque and Palancia

“An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

17(a)(1). A real party in interest is “any party to whom the relevant substantive law grants a cause 

of action.” U-Haul Intern, Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 793 F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 1986). “A real 

party in interest must have an actual, substantial interest in the subject matter of the action.” City 

of Industry v. City of Fillmore, 198 Cal. App. 4th 191, 208 (N.D. Cal. 2011). To determine 

whether Jorque and Palancia are real parties in interest here, the Court “must look to the 

substantive law that governs this case.” U-Haul, 793 F.2d at 1038.

Defendants argue that Jorque and Palancia are not parties in interest to this action because 

they transferred their interest in the Subject Property to Diamond Investments in 2011. See Mot.

at 4-5. However, Defendants base that claim on the unsupported assertion that “[g]enerally, the 

real party in interest is the person holding title to the claim or property involved, as opposed to 

others who may be interested in or benefit by the litigation.” See id. at 5. Plaintiffs also fail to 

adequately address this argument in their opposition. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendants 

to file supplemental briefing not to exceed 10 pages no later than December 23, 2016, explaining 

on a claim-by-claim basis why the substantive law governing each claim alleged by Plaintiffs does 

Case 4:16-cv-03937-HSG Document 43 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not grant them a cause of action so as to make them real parties in interest pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 17(a). The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file responsive supplemental briefing on the same 

question, also not to exceed 10 pages, no later than January 6, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/16/2016

Case 4:16-cv-03937-HSG Document 43 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 3