Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01829/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Van M. Robinson and Polly R. Robinson,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1829-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the parties' supplemental memoranda regarding jurisdiction

(docs. 39, 40, and 41). 

On August 26, 2010, plaintiffs, pro se, filed their original complaint in this court. It

alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601, et. seq.), Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617), Home Ownership and Equity

Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1639), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-

1691p), and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968).

Plaintiffs thereafter retained counsel and filed their first amended complaint (docs. 17, 18).

The amended complaint abandoned all federal claims and alleged only state law claims. In

their Joint Case Management Plan (doc. 31), the parties stated that although the amended

complaint failed to state any federal claims, we could exercise discretionary supplemental

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. At the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference we

Case 2:10-cv-01829-FJM Document 42 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 3
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

 Plaintiffs are residents of Arizona and Defendant On Q Financial is an Arizona

Corporation, with its principal place of business in Arizona.

- 2 -

requested supplemental briefs addressing whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed

and, if so, whether we should exercise it.

As a preliminary matter, the parties do not dispute a lack of diversity necessary for

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1

 The issue is whether the amended complaint must

assert federal question jurisdiction, or whether federal questions alleged in the original

complaint are sufficient. Defendants Bank of New York Mellon, et. al. argue that the

amended complaint is the operative pleading now, and that its failure to allege federal

questions deprives us of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant On Q Financial, Inc.

disagrees and argues that we have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383

U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966). Plaintiffs take no position, but argue that they erroneously omitted

several federal claims and therefore we may exercise jurisdiction over an as yet unfiled

proposed second amended complaint. 

Federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time an action is commenced. See

Morongo Bd. of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376,

1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, federal jurisdiction existed when plaintiffs filed their original

complaint because they alleged violations of various federal laws. However, "an amended

pleading supersedes the original pleading, which is treated thereafter as non-existent." Desai

v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Ltd., 573 F.3d 931, 936, n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations

omitted). Thus, "when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily

amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction."

Rockwell Int'l. Corp. v. U.S., 549 U.S. 457, 473-74, 127 S. Ct. 1397, 1409 (2007).

Thus, because plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts only state law claims, we do not

have federal question jurisdiction. In addition, we cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction

without original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy

Case 2:10-cv-01829-FJM Document 42 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 3
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

 Plaintiffs' state law claims are: (1) declaratory judgment, (2) injunctive relief, (3)

breach of contract, (4) violation of A.R.S. § 33-804, (5) illegality of MERS, (6) fraud, (7)

wrongful foreclosure, (8) bifurcation, (9) the conclusive presumption of A.R.S. § 33-811(B)

violates the separation of powers doctrine contained in Article 3 of the Arizona Constitution,

and (10) breach of contract. As set forth in the amended complaint, none of plaintiffs' claims

makes any reference to federal law and therefore could not depend on a substantial issue of

federal law. See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308,

314, 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2368 (2005) (stating that we may find federal jurisdiction embedded

in plaintiffs' state law claims only if those claims "necessarily raise a stated federal issue,

actually disputed and substantial").

- 3 -

Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, because plaintiffs' first amended

complaint does not assert any cause of action arising under federal law, and the state law

claims2

 do not depend on a substantial issue of federal law, we do not have federal subject

matter jurisdiction.

Although the amendment deadline has passed, having requested supplemental

memoranda regarding jurisdiction, we will allow plaintiffs additional time to file a motion

for leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall have to and including January 14, 2011 to file a motion

for leave to amend. We note that plaintiffs may allege violations of procedural due process

under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Circuit law suggests that a

private foreclosure sale of a mortgagor's residence pursuant to a non-judicial foreclosure

statute is not state action implicating the due process clause. See Apao v. Bank of New

York, 324 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs should address this problem in their

motion for leave to amend.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs to and including January 14,

2011 to file a motion for leave to amend, absent which this action will be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01829-FJM Document 42 Filed 01/04/11 Page 3 of 3