Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01859/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01859-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SHAQUITA C. BROWN,

No. 2:10-cv-01859 FCD/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AURORA LOAN SERVICES; DIABLO

FUNDING GROUP; LAMORINDA

FUNDING GROUP; JOSEPH DUNNEGAN

MATHEWS; ZACKRY ALVIS COOPER;

DOES 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Aurora Loan

Services, LLC’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Shaquita C. Brown’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). Without jurisdiction, this court cannot

Case 2:10-cv-01859-FCD-JFM Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

adjudicate the merits of this case or order any relief. See id.

(“If the district court had no jurisdiction over the subject

matter, the action should have been dismissed, regardless of the

parties’ preference for an adjudication in federal court.”). 

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in the Superior Court for the

State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, alleges

claims only under state law. However, on July 16, 2010,

defendant filed a Notice of Removal on the basis of federal

question jurisdiction, asserting that plaintiff’s state law

claims “necessarily raise the disputed and substantial federal

issue of whether the disclosures concerning plaintiff’s October

2006 loans met the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15

U.S.C. section 1601 et seq. (“TILA”).” (Notice of Removal, filed

July 16, 2010, ¶ 3.) 

“The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist.

v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal

jurisdiction may also lie if “it appears that some substantial

disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of

the well-pleaded state claims.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc.,

80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of

California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern

California, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). 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

Case 2:10-cv-01859-FCD-JFM Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

theory – federal question jurisdiction does not attach because

federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.” Id.

(holding that the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim did not

give rise to federal question jurisdiction because it could be

supported by violations of the state law constitution, not only

violations of a federal statute); Lippit v. Raymond James Fin.

Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that

California unfair competition law claims did not give rise to

federal question jurisdiction because such claims are based on

unfair or fraudulent conduct generally, and not necessarily

violations of federal rules and regulations); Mulcahey v.

Columbia Organic Chemicals, 29 F.3d 148. 153 (4th Cir. 1994)

(holding that negligence action alleging violations of local,

state, and federal environmental laws did not confer federal

question jurisdiction).

In this case, plaintiff’s claims do not rely on violations

of federal law. Specifically, in their first cause of action for

fraud, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendant Aurora Loan

Services, LLC knowingly failed to follow California Commercial

Code § 3301 et seq. when it transferred plaintiff’s mortgage not

to defendant Diablo Funding Group. (Compl., attached to Notice

of Removal, ¶¶ 91-100.) Similarly in her seventh cause of action

for violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200

et seq., plaintiff alleges that defendant Aurora violated state

law by making false statement to credit reporting agencies and by

using unfair and unreasonable means to collect a debt, and in her

eighth cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendant Aurora

violated California Civil Code § 2923.5, et seq. through its

Case 2:10-cv-01859-FCD-JFM Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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 Defendant raises no basis for removal arising out of

diversity jurisdiction in its Notice of Removal.

4

conduct relating to the transfer of the note. (Id. ¶¶ 222-26;

249-54.) Further, plaintiff’s claims against the other unserved

defendants arise out of allegations that defendants withheld

material facts from plaintiff, made affirmative

misrepresentations about the loan, lied about plaintiff’s income

on her loan application, and was prevented from reviewing the

documents. Nowhere in plaintiff’s complaint is TILA referenced. 

As such, based upon a review of plaintiff’s allegations,

resolution of issues implicating federal law is not essential,

and thus, determination of federal law is not a necessary element

of one of the well-pleaded state claims. See Christianson v.

Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988) (“[A]

claim supported by alternative theories in the complaint may not

form the basis for [federal] jurisdiction unless [federal] law is

essential to each of those theories.”).

Because the court does not have federal question

jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims,1 the court REMANDS this

action back to the Superior Court of California, County of

Sacramento. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 25, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-01859-FCD-JFM Document 6 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 4