Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01301/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

CECILIA CAMACHO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1301 JM (JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

LUCIO CAMACHO, an individual;

ANGELINA CAMACHO, an

individual; LAW OFFICES

OF LES ZIEVE, as TRUSTEE;

PROVIDENT FUNDING

ASSOCIATES, LP; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEM; and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive.

Defendants.

Plaintiff initiated this case in this court on June 12, 2015, asserting six 

state-law causes of action: (1) wrongful foreclosure, in violation of California

Civil Code § 2923.6(c); (2) violation of California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights,

California Civil Code § 2924.10(a); (3) violation of California’s Homeowner Bill

of Rights, California Civil Code § 2923.55(b); (4) negligence; (5) unlawful, unfair,

or deceptive business practices, in violation of California Business & Professions

Code § 17200 et seq.; and (6) fraud and misrepresentation. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 47–95.) 

Plaintiff alleges that this court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. (Id. ¶ 2.)

- 1 - 15cv1301

Case 3:15-cv-01301-JM-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 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

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause

lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary

rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). The court has

a duty to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, whether the parties raise

the issue or not. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360

F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).

“[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by

the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083,

1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim invoking federalquestion jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . . . may be dismissed for want of

subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is immaterial and made

solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and

frivolous.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (internal

quotation marks omitted). 

In this case, although the caption and the title of one claim mention the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, Plaintiff did not cite the Act, identify the relevant

provisions, or provide any allegations regarding how the Act was violated. Because

the remainder of the claims are under state law and there is no basis for diversity

jurisdiction given the citizenship of the parties, the complaint presents no basis for

federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 8, 2015

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv1301

Case 3:15-cv-01301-JM-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 2