Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02508/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345fc Foreclosure

---

1 

18cv2508-LAB (NLS)

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

DAVID LOUDON, et al.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, et al., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2508-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs David Loudon and Celest Loudon are litigating against Deutsche 

Bank National Trust Company and MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps, in 

California state court. They have removed that case multiple times and are 

currently subject to sanctions for removing it even though they knew they knew 

removal was improper. See Docket no. 4 in case 18cv2507-LAB (NLS), Deutsche 

Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Loudon (S.D. Cal., filed November 1, 2018). 

In this case, Plaintiffs filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). If the motions were granted, the Court would be required to screen the 

complaint immediately and to dismiss it to the extent it fails to state a claim. 28 

U.S.C. '' 1915(e)(2); 1915A; Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(holding that district courts must screen all IFP plaintiffs’ complaints, not just 

Case 3:18-cv-02508-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2508-LAB (NLS)

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

prisoners’). The Court is also required to raise and address jurisdictional issues in 

all cases, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is a doubt as to its jurisdiction. 

Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). In 

addition, the Court can deny IFP if the complaint would be subject to dismissal 

after screening. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998).

The complaint alleges that Defendants are about to wrongfully sell the 

Loudons’ property in a foreclosure sale, and seeks injunctive relief. The injunction 

would run against both Defendants, and the complaint alleges that both 

Defendants committed wrongful acts in order to bring about the foreclosure.

The complaint does not identify any basis for jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ claims arise under state law and no substantial federal 

question is presented. They have not alleged facts to support diversity jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, the records in this litigation and public records available on the 

California Secretary of State’s website suggest that they and Defendant MTC 

Financial are not diverse. 

In spite of the complaint’s conclusion that a foreclosure sale is imminent, the 

facts make clear this is wrong. Deutsche Bank bought the Loudons’ property at a 

foreclosure sale in 2011. (Compl., & 9.) The case the Loudons have repeatedly 

removed is an unlawful detainer action by Deutsche Bank, attempting to gain 

possession of the property from the Loudons. The Court obviously cannot enjoin 

a sale that took place eight years ago, and this claim is moot.

Furthermore, even if Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint invoking the 

Court’s jurisdiction, it is clear such a complaint would be subject to dismissal

because the statute of limitations has passed. See Kirkpatrick v. Restropo, 2018 

WL 360231, at *5 and n.6 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., Jan. 11, 2018) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code, '' 338, 343; Walters v. Boosinger, 2 Cal. App. 5th 421, 428 (Cal. App. 4 

Dist., 2016); Robertson v. Superior Ct., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1326–27 (Cal. App. 

1 Dist., 2001)) (holding that fraud and wrongful foreclosure claims were barred by 

Case 3:18-cv-02508-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv2508-LAB (NLS)

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

three- and four-year limitations periods, respectively). As to any other claims 

Plaintiffs might have, the Court would abstain while the state case is pending. See 

Scherbenske v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058 (E.D. Cal., 

2009) (citing Colorado River Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 

(1976); 40235 Washington Street Corp. v. Lusardi, 976 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1992)) 

(holding that abstention was required while unlawful detainer action was pending 

in state court). And after that case is adjudicated, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

would bar litigation or review of matters either decided in that action, or inextricably 

intertwined with the state court’s decision. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 

525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims as pled, and Plaintiffs clearly 

cannot successfully amend. The two IFP motions are therefore DENIED and the 

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 11, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02508-LAB-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3