Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANDERSON, KAREN

ANDERSON,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INC.,

dba HOME FUNDS DIRECT, a

California Corporation; SELECT

PORTFOLIO, Inc., a Utah

Corporation; and DOES 1 through

50, inclusive, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:10-cv-01318-GEB-KJN

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING

CASE TO STATE COURT

This case will be remanded sua sponte to the Placer County

Superior Court from which it was removed, since the federal court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaint and

removal was improper. “A court may sua sponte remand a case to state

court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without briefing or

hearing if the lack of jurisdiction is clear.” Cortes v. Bank of Am.,

N.A., No. CV 09-7457 AHM (FFMx), 2009 WL 4048861, at *1 (C.D. Cal.

Nov. 20, 2009) (citations omitted). 

Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing Company, Inc. (“Select

Portfolio”) states in its Notice of Removal filed on May 27, 2010,

that this case was removed based on federal question jurisdiction. 

(Not. of Removal ¶ 3.) Specifically, Select Portfolio asserts

Plaintiffs’ claims “arise and/or appear[] to arise under federal

statutes, including the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GEB-KJN Document 11 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 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

2

seq., the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et

seq., and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1639 et seq., among possible others, due to the allegations of

Plaintiffs that Defendants did not make certain disclosures concerning

Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, that Defendants’ failed to explain the

terms of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, and that Defendants engaged in a

‘predatory lending scheme.’” (Id.)

However, review of Plaintiffs’ complaint reveals their

claims are based solely on state law. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges

the following seven claims against Defendants: 1) deceit, 2) fraud -

actual, 3) fraud - constructive, 4) breach of fiduciary duty, 5)

negligence, 6) violations of California Business and Professions Code

§ 17200 et seq., and 7) violations of California Business and

Professions Code § 17500 et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims concern

misrepresentations Defendants allegedly made to Plaintiffs when

Plaintiffs refinanced their home mortgage loan and obtained a home

equity loan.

Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims “arising under”

federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The 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.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014

(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Audette v. Int’l Longshoremen’s &

Warehousemen’s Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)). “The

[well-pleaded complaint] rule makes the plaintiff the master of [his]

claim[s]; he may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on

state law.” Catepillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GEB-KJN Document 11 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Further, “when an alternative theory of relief exists for each claim

alleged in the complaint, one not dependent upon federal law, federal

question jurisdiction is defeated.” Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs

v. County of Plumas, 559 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore,

“‘[a]rising under’ federal jurisdiction only arises . . . when the

federal law does more than just shape a court’s interpretation of

state law; the federal law must be at issue.” Id.

Nonetheless, “[u]nder the artful pleading doctrine, a

plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary

federal questions in a complaint.” Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin.

Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotations and

citations omitted). The artful pleading doctrine applies to “(1)

complete preemption cases, and (2) substantial federal question cases. 

Subsumed within this second category are those cases where the claim

is necessarily federal in character or where the right to relief

depends on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal

question.” Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under federal law. No

federal law is at issue, nor have Plaintiffs employed “artful

pleading” to clothe a “necessarily federal” or “substantial [and]

disputed federal question” as a state claim. Therefore, this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims and remands

this case to the Placer County Superior Court from which it was

removed.

Dated: July 7, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GEB-KJN Document 11 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 3