Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01648/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

- 1 - 11cv1648

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR M. LOPEZ-FELIX,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1648 JLS (BGS)

ORDER: SUA SPONTE

vs. REMANDING CASE

EMC MORTGAGE CORP.; NDEX WEST,

LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego on

February 17, 2011. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 1, ECF No. 1; Notice of Removal Ex. 1 (Compl.).)

Subsequently, filed a first amended complaint alleging seven claims: (1) quiet title, (2) injunctive

relief, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) wrongful foreclosure, (5) fraud, (6) intentional misrepresentation,

and (7) violation of California Civil Code section 1632(b)(4). (Notice of Removal ¶ 3; Notice of

Removal Ex. 2 (FAC).) On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff removed the case to this Court. (Notice of

Removal.) Plaintiff’s contends that removal is proper because “[t]he complaint includes claims that

are based, in part, upon federal law, including the implications as to violations of” the Truth in

Lending Act and Regulation Z. (Id. ¶ 9.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s removal of this case was

improper and sua sponte remands the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Diego.

In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

Case 3:11-cv-01648-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/29/11 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 - 11cv1648

jurisdiction,” a defendant may remove the case to federal district court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). This

statute is “quite clear that only a ‘defendant’ may remove [an] action to federal court.” Bush v.

Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets,

313 U.S. 100, 106–08 (1941); Or. Egg Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A

plaintiff who commences his action in a state court cannot effectuate removal to a federal court even

if he could have originated the action in a federal court . . . .”).

Here, even assuming that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s amended

complaint—which the Court does not concede, see Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547

U.S. 677, 701 (2006) (emphasizing that only a “slim category” of state law claims “aris[e] under”

federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331)—§ 1441 does not permit its removal. Plaintiff made the

choice to commence this action in state court, and he is bound by that choice. Accordingly, this

matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. The Clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01648-JLS-BGS Document 3 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 2