Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00415/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00415-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00415-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIAN RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 

fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE 

CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN 

TRUST 2007-OA6 MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 

2007-OA6, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00415-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Julian Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) commenced the instant action directly in this court on 

January 25, 2016, against Defendants Bank of America, N.A., and The Bank of New York Mellon 

fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the Cwalt, Inc. Alternative 

Loan Trust 2007-OA6 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA6 (“Bank of New 

York”), and asserts six causes of action in the Complaint: (1) fraud, (2) violation of the 

Homeowners Bill of Rights, (3) violation of Civil Code § 2923.5, (4) breach of contract, (5) 

specific performance, and (6) injunctive relief. 

As is its obligation, this court has reviewed the Complaint to determine whether Plaintiff 

included allegations sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction and has been guided by the 

Case 5:16-cv-00415-EJD Document 37 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00415-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

principles that govern such an inquiry. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) 

(“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of 

their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties 

either overlook or elect not to press.”); see also Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 

(9th Cir. 2013) (“[F]ederal courts have a continuing, independent obligation to determine whether 

subject matter jurisdiction exists.”). In short, he has not done so.

To begin, the court is mindful that, in contrast to state courts, “[f]ederal courts are courts of 

limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two ways: (1) from the presence of a federal question, or 

(2) from diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

For jurisdiction based on a federal question under § 1331, the court looks to the face of a 

“well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law or 

whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question 

of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing 

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). 

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule . . . a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only 

when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal 

law].’” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 

v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Factual allegations, and not labels, are determinative of 

whether a cause of action actually presents a federal question. See Labram v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918, 

920 (4th Cir. 1995).

For subject matter jurisdiction to arise on the basis of diversity under § 1332, “there must 

be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties opposed in interest.” Kuntz v. Lamar 

Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). The amount in controversy must also exceed 

$75,000. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). For jurisdictional purposes, 

individuals are citizens of their states of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 

857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The natural person’s state citizenship is [] determined by her state of 

Case 5:16-cv-00415-EJD Document 37 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00415-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

domicile, not her state of residence.”). In contrast, “[a] corporation is a citizen of (1) the state 

under whose laws it is organized or incorporated; and (2) the state of its ‘principal place of 

business.’” Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008). “Absent 

unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege 

affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties” in order to confirm that all parties are 

diverse. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.

In addition, the court observes that it must look to the Complaint’s jurisdictional 

allegations because “[a] party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving 

the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 

(9th Cir. 1996). To that end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires the plaintiff to provide “a 

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.”

Here, Plaintiff does not reveal the claimed basis for federal jurisdiction but alleges that the 

Bank of New York is a “New York corporation doing business in Santa Clara County” and that 

Bank of America is a “National Association doing business in Santa Clara County, California.” 

Compl., at ¶¶ 2, 3. These allegations fail to establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship

to the extent they are meant for that purpose. More specifically, missing are allegations 

concerning Bank of America’s state of incorporation and principal place of business, as well as the 

Bank of New York’s principal place of business. In addition, the Complaint is silent as to the 

amount in controversy. 

Furthermore, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal question because all 

causes of action asserted in the Complaint arise under state law. 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not satisfied his obligation to affirmatively demonstrate 

federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court issues an order to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed. If Plaintiff does not, by September 26, 2016, file a written response that 

demonstrates the basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the 

discussion above, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Freeman v. Oakland 

Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case 5:16-cv-00415-EJD Document 37 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00415-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court. The 

motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for September 15, 2016, is VACATED and will be reset, if 

necessary, upon resolution of the jurisdictional issue described herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00415-EJD Document 37 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 4