Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01978/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01978-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VLADAMIR GOLOVEY,

No. 2:09-cv-01978-MCE-JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.;

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND

DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is a Motion by Defendants Saxon

Mortgage Services, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc. (“Defendants”) to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint of Plaintiff Vladimir Golovey (“Plaintiff”) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

Plaintiff originally filed in state court alleging several

violations of law in connection with his mortgage loan. 

Case 2:09-cv-01978-MCE -JFM Document 33 Filed 01/29/10 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

Defendants removed the suit to federal court. Plaintiff has

since filed an Amended Verified Complaint, which now serves as

the basis of this suit.

 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege any basis for

federal jurisdiction. In fact, Plaintiff alleges in Paragraph 6

of his Amended Complaint entitled “Venue and Jurisdiction” that

“(v)enue is proper in the State Court as the SUBJECT PROPERTY is

located within its jurisdiction, not federal Court.” While

allegations of violations of federal law and diversity of

jurisdiction existed in the original Complaint, none exist in the

Amended Complaint. Defendants did not address this issue. 

Notwithstanding that there are no allegations claiming federal

jurisdiction in the Amended Complaint, Defendants continue to

address each of Plaintiff’s claims on the merits. In view of

this Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction in this case,

Defendants’ arguments should be directed to the state court. On

the Court’s own motion, the case is dismissed without prejudice.

In light of the Court’s ruling, Defendants Motion is denied as

moot.

The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,

County of Sacramento. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01978-MCE -JFM Document 33 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2