Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03047/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03047-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

FERIDON N. DIZADJI,

NO. CIV. S-09-3047 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, SUN TRUST MORTGAGE,

INC., and DOES 1 to 100

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the motions of defendants

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

to dismiss plaintiff Feridon N. Dizadji’s (“plaintiff”) complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6).

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry before the adjudication of

any case before the court. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians

v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.

1988). The court has reviewed defendants’ notice of removal to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) based on federal question

Case 2:09-cv-03047-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/02/10 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

1 Plaintiff’s third claim for relief seeks specific

performance to modify plaintiff’s home mortgage loan. This is,

in essence, a contract remedy. Plaintiff does, in part, base

this claim on the Hope for Homeowners’ Act and the Emergency

Economic Stabalization Act of 2008–both federal statutes. 

However, “[w]hen a claim can be supported by alternative and

independent theories – one of which is a state law theory and one

of which is a federal law theory – federal question jurisdiction

does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of

the claim.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th

Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s claim is also predicated upon California

Civil Code § 2923.6, thus providing an alternative theory for

relief and barring federal question jurisdiction. 

2

jurisdiction. The court finds that the underlying complaint,

alleging causes of action for (1) rescission or reformation of

contract, (2) fraud, (3) specific performance, (4) wrongful

foreclosure, (5) wrongful eviction, (6) quiet title, and (7)

civil conspiracy, does not present a federal question and is

therefore improperly before this court.1

 Accordingly, the court

REMANDS this action back to the Superior Court of California,

County of Solano. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 2, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03047-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2