Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00554/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

JANLEY P. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FIDELITY CAPITAL FUNDING INC, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-554 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT

AND REMANDING TO STATE

COURT

Janley Gonzalez, acting in pro per, brought this action against various defendants. His

complaint asserts numerous violations of state law committed in connection with his

acquisition of a mortgage loan. One defendant, JP Morgan Chase, moves to dismiss. JP

Morgan is not named in the complaint, but is a successor to named defendant Washington

Mutual. Washington Mutual, in turn, is the successor in interest to named defendants Long

Beach Mortgage Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. JP Morgan argues,

inter alia, that it is not the successor in interest to Washington Mutual’s liabilities, but rather

that it simply purchased certain assets after Washington Mutual went into receivership.

Indeed, JP Morgan submits judicially noticeable documents reflecting the fact that the

FDIC retains its interest in Washington Mutual’s liabilities, and is therefore the proper

defendant. In particular, Defendant has submitted a copy of the purchase and assumption

agreement between the FDIC and JP Morgan Chase Bank. Plaintiff does not dispute that this 

Case 3:10-cv-00554-CRB Document 12 Filed 04/12/10 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

1

 Williams relied on two Ninth Circuit cases to support taking judicial notice of such an

agreement. See Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice of agreements to which the government was a party); Transmission

Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 295 F.3d 918, 924 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (taking judicial notice

of order from federal agency). See also Yeomalakis v. F.D.I.C., 562 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2009). This Court

does the same.

G:\CRBALL\2010\554\Order Dismissing.wpd 2

document is an authentic record, and other courts have taken judicial notice of this same

document. See Williams v. F.D.I.C., No. 08-15296, 2009 WL 5199237 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23,

2009).1

 This agreement reflects that JP Morgan never assumed the legal liabilities owed to

borrowers by Washington Mutual. See Req. for Judicial Notice, ex. 2, at 9. This court

follows Williams and Yeomalakis, and concludes that Plaintiff has not viable claims against

Defendant JP Morgan Chase. Therefore, the moving defendant is DISMISSED from this

action.

Moreover, Defendant has established that Plaintiff’s federal claims are clearly barred

by the relevant statute of limitations. Therefore, those claims must be dismissed as to all

defendants. Because this dismissal eliminates the question of federal law that originally

established federal subject matter jurisdiction, and because there is no diversity among the

parties, this Court hereby REMANDS what remains of this action to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00554-CRB Document 12 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2