Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03185/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03185-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The parties are not completely diverse, and Plaintiffs’ sole basis for asserting

federal jurisdiction is their FDCPA claim.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-03185 JSW

ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK

OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

On July 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging claims for relief based on alleged

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), California’s Rosenthal Act,

and claims for Fraud, Wrongful Foreclosure, Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Quiet

Title. Plaintiffs’ claims arise in relation to an foreclosure scheduled for August 21, 2010,

relating to Plaintiffs’ rental property located at 418 Persia Avenue, San Francisco, CA (“the

Property”).

On July 21, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiffs to show

cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because it

had concerns about whether Plaintiffs had stated a viable claim under the FDCPA.1

On August 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause

and also filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, in which they seek to

enjoin the foreclosure sale scheduled for August 23, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-03185-JSW Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2 Under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a)(2), “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). 

2

Under the FDCPA, “debt” is defined as “any obligation or alleged obligation of a

consumer to pay money arising out a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or

services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or

household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” 15 U.S.C.

§ 1692a(5) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs admit in their complaint that the Property is a rental

property and that the tenants have occupied the Property since 1981. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The Deed

of Trust and Promissory Note pertaining to the loan in question, however, were not executed

until April 2007. Notwithstanding their conclusory allegations at paragraph 39 of the

complaint, which the Court is not required to accept as true, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts

demonstrating that Defendants are attempting to collect a “debt” under the FDCPA.2

 Compare

Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols and Clark LLC, 214 F.3d 872, 874-75 (7th

Cir. 2000) (concluding that plaintiff had stated a claim where, at time loan was originated,

plaintiff used the property as personal residence, even though at time of alleged FDCPA

violation, plaintiff was renting the property to others).

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations relating to the FDCPA claim relate to foreclosure

proceedings and courts throughout this circuit have concluded that foreclosure does not

constitute “debt collection” under the FDCPA. See, e.g., Deissner v. Mortgage Elec. Regis.

Sys., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1189 (D. Ariz. 2009), aff’d 2010 WL 2464899 (9th Cir. Jun. 17,

2010); Landayan v. Washington Mutual Bank, 2009 WL 3047238, at * 3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18,

2009) (citing Maguire v. Citicorp. Retail Svcs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir. 1998) and Perry

v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985)).

Because Plaintiffs have not, and based on the allegations in the Complaint could not,

state a viable claim under the FDCPA, that claim is dismissed with prejudice. 

//

Case 3:10-cv-03185-JSW Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims

and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in state court. A separate

judgment shall issue, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03185-JSW Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERMIN SOLIS ANIEL et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV10-03185 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 9, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Erlinda Abibas Aniel

75 Tobin Clark Drive

Hillsborough, CA 94010

Fermin Solis Aniel

75 Tobin Clark Drive

Hillsborough, CA 94010

Marc Jason Aniel

75 Tobin Clark Drive

Hillsborough, CA 94010

Dated: August 9, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:10-cv-03185-JSW Document 10 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4