Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02024-2/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IRAJ YAZDANPANAH, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

SACRAMENTO VALLEY MORTGAGE 

GROUP D/B/A GREATER VALLEY 

MORTGAGE, a business entity, form 

unknown; UNITED FINANCIAL 

MORTGAGE CORP., a business entity form 

unknown; US SACRAMENTO VALLEY, a 

business entity, form unknown; MORTGAGE 

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., a business entity, form unknown; 

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, a 

business entity, form unknown, GMAC 

MORTGAGE, a business entity, form 

unknown; NDEX WEST, LLC, a business 

entity form unknown; WELLS FARGO 

BANK, N.A., a business entity form unknown; 

all persons unknown, claiming any legal or 

equitable right, title estate, lien or interest in 

the property described in this Complaint 

adverse to Plaintiff’s title thereto, and DOES 1 

through 25, inclusive,

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-02024 SBA

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

Plaintiff alleges that he was defrauded by Defendants in connection with the refinancing 

of his home. He originally filed suit in Contra County Superior Court on March 16, 2009. On 

May 8, 2009, Defendants removed the action to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on 

the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint alleged claims arising under federal law. See Notice of 

Removal ¶ 3 (Docket 1). Specifically, they predicated the removal on Plaintiff’s fifth cause of 

Case 4:09-cv-02024-SBA Document 62 Filed 03/10/10 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 

action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Sixth Cause of Action for violation 

of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Id. On December 1, 2009, the Court 

granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, with leave to amend certain claims. On December 11, 

2009, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in which he abandoned his TILA and 

RESPA claims.1

 Despite the lack of federal claims in the amended pleading, Defendants filed 

a second round of motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Docket 51, 53. 

Before considering the merits of Defendants’ motions, the Court must first determine 

whether it has jurisdiction over the action. Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject 

matter jurisdiction whether or not the parties raise the issue. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of 

Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 229 (1990); United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 

F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). This rule applies equally to removed actions. See Harris v. 

Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Although no objection 

was made to removal, we must still address whether federal jurisdiction exists.”); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Kelton Arms Condominium Owners 

Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (“we have held that the 

district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). 

When the federal claim that served as the basis for removal is eliminated, either through 

dismissal by the court or by a plaintiff amending his or her complaint, federal courts may 

decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and 

exercise its discretion to remand them to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. 

Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (court may sua sponte exercise 

discretion and dismiss state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, the Second 

Amended Complaint alleges only claims based on state law. To date, no responsive pleadings 

 1 Neither the TILA nor RESPA claims were at issue in the prior motions to dismiss. 

“[T]he plaintiff is ‘the master of his complaint’ and may ‘avoid federal jurisdiction by relying 

exclusively on state law.’” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)) 

(quoting in part Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 

2000)). 

Case 4:09-cv-02024-SBA Document 62 Filed 03/10/10 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 

have been filed, no discovery has been taken, and no dates have been scheduled. Given the 

lack of any federal claims, coupled with the early stage of the litigation, the Court exercises its 

discretion and remands the action to the state court from which it was removed. See CarnegieMellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351(1988) (“When the single federal-law claim in the 

action was eliminated at an early stage of the litigation, the District Court had a powerful 

reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.”); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 

934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“it is generally preferable for a district court to remand 

remaining pendant claims to state court.”). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is REMANDED to the Superior 

Court of California, County of Contra Costa, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk shall 

close the file and terminate any pending matters in this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 8, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-02024-SBA Document 62 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3