Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02119-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems (MERS) Litigation

_________________________________

This Order Applies to:

CV 10-217-PHX-JAT

CV 10-218-PHX-JAT

CV 10-219-PHX-JAT

CV 10-268-PHX-JAT

CV 10-401-PHX-JAT

CV 10-413-PHX-JAT

CV 10-415-PHX-JAT

CV 10-455-PHX-JAT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL DOCKET NO. 09-2119-JAT

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions to remand seven member cases, Mesi v.

Washington Mutual, F.A., et al., CV 10-218-PHX-JAT, Youngren v. Ownit Mortgage

Solutions, Inc., et al., CV 10-219-PHX-JAT, Huynh v. First National Bank of Nevada, et al.,

CV 10-217-PHX-JAT, Lee v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co., et al., 10-268-PHX-JAT,

Gillespie v. Countrywide Bank, FSB, et al., CV 10-413-PHX-JAT, Huck v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., et al., CV 10-401-PHX-JAT, and Caffee v. First National Bank of

Nevada, et al., CV 10-415-PHX-JAT back to state court (Doc. 521, 639, 640, 1075, 1076,

1077, 1078). In each of these cases, the Court’s August 16, 2010 Order granted Plaintiffs

leave to file amended complaints, which Plaintiffs subsequently filed on August 19, 2010

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1211 Filed 12/28/10 Page 1 of 5
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

The Court’s Order also granted Plaintiffs leave in an eighth case, Barlow v. BNC

Mortgage, Inc., et al., CV 10-455-PHX-JAT, but Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint

in that case within the time allowed.

- 2 -

(Doc. 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1079).1

 The motions to remand are now fully

briefed. 

Defendants MERSCORP, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

(collectively, “MERS”) opposes the motions to remand in Mesi, Youngren, and Huynh (Doc.

676, 1101). Defendant Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Sierra Pacific”) opposes

the motion to remand in Lee (Doc. 1131). Defendant California Reconveyance Company

opposes the motion to remand in Mesi (Doc. 1105). Defendants Countrywide Bank, FSB,

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., Lisa Klimenko, Bank of

America Corporation, N.A., and Recontrust Company, N.A. oppose the motion to remand

in Gillespie (Doc. 1137). Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Kumud Patel,

Countrywide Financial Corp., Bank of America Corporation, N.A., and Recontrust Company,

N.A. oppose the motion to remand in Huck (Doc. 1136). Defendants Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., Recontrust Company, N.A., Countrywide Financial Corp., and Bank of America

Corporation, N.A. oppose the motion to remand in Caffee (Doc. 1135). Defendant Litton

Loan Servicing LP (“Litton”) opposes the motion to remand in Youngren (Doc. 716, 1100).

The Plaintiffs filed various replies in support of their motions to remand (Doc. 882, 1153,

1154, 1155, 1156, 1159, 1160).

I. Background 

The above-captioned seven cases–Caffee, Gillespie, Huck, Huynh, Lee, Mesi, and

Youngren–were all initiated in Nevada state court. Defendants removed the cases to federal

court from whence they were transferred to this Court as part of the MERS MDL. 

On April 4, 2010, Plaintiffs in Caffee, Gillespie, and Huck joined the plaintiffs in

sixteen other member cases, all represented by the same counsel, in filing a Renewed Motion

to Remand to the Judicial Court in and for the State of Nevada County of Origin (Doc. 253).

The motion sought remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction despite the fact that the

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1211 Filed 12/28/10 Page 2 of 5
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

 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

- 3 -

complaints all contained reference to federal law violations such as the Truth in Lending Act.

To accomplish this feat, the motion purported to “withdraw” these federal claims and then,

alleging that there is an insufficient amount in controversy to sustain diversity jurisdiction,

moved for remand. The Court denied the motion, without prejudice, as an improperly framed

effort to amend the pleadings (Doc. 368). 

On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff Youngren moved to remand to state court (Doc. 521). On

June 6, 2010, Plaintiffs Mesi and Plaintiff Huynh both moved to remand their cases to state

court (Doc. 639, 640). As mentioned above, the Court’s August 16, 2010 Order granted

Plaintiffs leave to file amended complaints in all seven cases. That Order did not rule on the

motions to remand to state court, but allowed for supplemental briefing on whether federal

question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction exists under the amended complaints. On

August 19, 2010, Plaintiffs in Caffee, Gillespie, Huck, and Lee moved to remand their cases

to state court (Doc. 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078).

II. Legal Standard

Generally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “The district courts may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . (3) the district court has

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (2010).

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs amended their complaints in the hopes that the Court would remand these

actions to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). However, this subsection does not

apply because Plaintiffs’ amended complaints contain at least one claim over which this

Court has original jurisdiction.

 In each amended complaint, Plaintiffs assert a cause of action under the FDCPA.2

For example, in the Youngren Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that: 

(1) various defendants are “debt collector[s]” as that term is defined under

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6); 

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1211 Filed 12/28/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 Doc. 1074, ¶¶ 61-64, 68.

4 Id., ¶¶ 69-71.

- 4 -

(2) the notice of default which was recorded is a “communication” as

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2);

(3) the notice of default did not contain the information required to be

included under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11);

(4) the notice of default did not contain the information required to be

included under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(1)-(5); and 

(5) various defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)(A) by “continuing

with the foreclosure proceedings when at that time there was no present right

to possession of the property.”3

 

Plaintiff Youngren’s amended complaint – in this regard identical to the other six amended

complaints – also seeks statutory damages, actual damages, and attorneys fees under 15

U.S.C. § 1692k(a).4

 

Plaintiffs argue that these claims are actually made under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 649.370

which states that “[a] violation of any provision of the federal [FDCPA], or any regulation

adopted pursuant thereto, shall be deemed to be a violation of ... chapter [649 of the Nevada

Revised Statutes].” But Chapter 649 of the Nevada Revised Statutes does not provide for a

private right of action, and does not allow for the types of relief plaintiff seeks.

Consequently, these claims must arise under the FDCPA, and the relief plaintiff seeks may

be awarded – if at all – under the FDCPA, and not under the Nevada statute. These claims

arise under federal law and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims under

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

As the Court finds that it has original jurisdiction over at least one of the claims in the

amended complaints of these seven member cases, remand to state court under 28 U.S.C. §

1367 (c)(3) is unavailable.

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1211 Filed 12/28/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions (Doc. 521, 639, 640, 1075, 1076, 1077,

1078) to remand Mesi, Youngren, Huynh, Lee, Gillespie, Huck, and Caffee to state court are

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that future motions in the above captioned actions

should be filed under the individual case number rather than in the general MDL case

number.

DATED this 28th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02119-JAT Document 1211 Filed 12/28/10 Page 5 of 5