Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01679/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01679-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C10-1679-JF (HRL)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 8/9/2010**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANCISCO VASQUEZ and JOSE VASQUEZ,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CAL WESTERN RECONVEYANCE

CORPORATION as Trustee for U.S. Bank

National Association as Trustee for First Franklin

Loan Trust through Certificate Series 2006-FF10,

et al.,

 Defendant.

Case No. 10-1679-JF (HRL)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 1

LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER

JURISDICTION

[re: document no. 12]

Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint on April 19, 2010. The complaint is styled as a

“removal” from the San Benito Superior Court. Plaintiffs allege that they were “ousted by force”

from their property. (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiffs suffered an adverse judgment in an unlawful

detainer action, and that judgment has been affirmed on appeal. See U.S. Bank National v.

Vasquez, No. CL-09-00140, Superior Court of California, San Benito County, Appellate

Division, Minute Order from Appeal (April 5, 2010). Plaintiffs state that they have “exhausted”

their state remedies, (Complaint at 2), ask the Court to intervene with respect to the Superior

Case 5:10-cv-01679-JF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Case No. C10-1679-JF (HRL)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

(JFEX1)

Court’s ruling that the subject property was conveyed legally to the trustee, (id.), allege that the

Superior Court’s order is “invalid” and “voidable . . . due to judicial errors,” (id. at 2-3), and

contend that they are “without any other remedy other than the federal courts . . .” (id. at 5). 

Federal courts are obligated to consider sua sponte whether they have subject matter

jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Allstate

Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004)). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

“federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review the final determinations of a state court in

judicial proceedings.” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir.

Ariz. 2001) (citing Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); D.C. Ct. of App. v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983)). See also Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 

Because the complaint seeks federal review of the Superior Court’s judgment in the unlawful

detainer action, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and the action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/9/2010 ___________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01679-JF Document 29 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2