Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01267/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01267-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE RICHARDS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C-10-01267 EDL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING

REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS, AND

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff George Richards filed a complaint in the Marin County

Superior Court against Defendants New Century Mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Atlantic & Pacific Foreclosure Services, Wells Fargo Bank as trustee for Carrington

Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NCS Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, and Carrington

Mortgage Services. The complaint alleges eleven state law causes of action arising from a mortgage

transaction. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank as trustee for Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series

2006-NCS Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, and Carrington Mortgage Services

(“Defendants”) were served on February 24, 2010, and removed the action to this Court based on

federal question jurisdiction on March 25, 2010. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 1, 2010. On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

motion to remand, and also sought costs and fees in the amount of $5,000. The Court held a hearing

for both motions on May 11, 2010. 

As stated at the hearing, the fact that Plaintiff’s complaint mentions several federal statutes

does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fardella v. Downey Savings & Loan

Ass’n, 2001 WL 492442 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2001) (granting motion to remand where federal law is

not necessary to decide California Business and Professions Code section 17200 claim because the

Case 3:10-cv-01267-EDL Document 16 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiff could prevail by showing a violation of federal or state law); Coleman v. Beazer Homes

Corp., 2008 WL 1848653, at *4 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 23, 2008) (“While the Defendants may be correct

that the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA may be implicated by the Plaintiffs' claims, the

existence of such federal issues does not confer federal-question jurisdiction in this case. ‘It is not

sufficient to show that a state law claim simply touches upon or implicates a federal issue, but rather

determination of the federal issue must be necessary to resolve the claim.’ California v. H & R

Block, Inc., No. C 06-2058, 2006 WL 2669045, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2006) (emphasis in

original).”). Further, at the hearing, Plaintiff agreed to forego his claim based on California

Business and Professions Code section 17200. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is

granted conditioned on Plaintiff’s dismissal of the section 17200 claim. Plaintiff’s request for

attorney’s fees is denied. In light of the order to remand, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied

as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01267-EDL Document 16 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 2