Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03087/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA MOLL, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:09-cv-03087-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) REMAND ORDER

)

TRIO REALTY AND LENDING, INC., a )

Corporation; AMERICAN BROKERS )

CONDUIT, type of entity unknown; )

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE CORP, a )

Corporation; AURORA LOAN SERVICES, )

type of entity unknown; LEHMAN )

BROTHERS CO., a Corporation; )

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, )

INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 )

thru 5, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Aurora Loan Services (“Aurora”) removed this case

from the Superior Court of Sacramento County in California, asserting

that federal question jurisdiction justified removal. However,

removal jurisdiction is considered sua sponte since Plaintiff states

she has the following claims in the caption of the Complaint:

“Complaint for supplying false information; for fraud, for altering

documents; and for breach of good faith and fair dealing implied

covenant; and for breach of contract.” 

Aurora states in its notice of removal that Plaintiff’s

claims “necessarily turn[] on some construction of federal law”

because Plaintiff “alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act [(“RESPA”)], 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., in that there

Case 2:09-cv-03087-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 01/13/10 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

was a false good faith estimate (12 U.S.C. § 2604; 24 C.F.R. § 3500.7)

and estimated closing statement (12 U.S.C. § 2603; 24 C.F.R. §

3500.8).” (Aurora’s Notice of Removal ¶ 3). For the reasons set

forth below, this case is remanded to state court.

I. LEGAL STANDARD DETERMINING FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

“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.” California

ex rel. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist., 215 F.3d

1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and quotations omitted). 

“Under that rule, [the Court] must look to ‘what necessarily appears

in the plaintiff's statement of [her] own claim . . . , unaided by

anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is

thought the defendant may interpose.’” Id. Further, “[P]laintiff is

the ‘master’ of her case, and if she can maintain her claims on both

state and federal grounds, she may ignore the federal question, assert

only state claims, and defeat removal.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d

1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996)(internal citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

 Plaintiff’s first claim is for false statements made by

Defendant Trio upon which Plaintiff “relied to her detriment” because

she signed the loan documents believing the interest rate for the loan

was in fact the same as what was stated in the good faith estimate

Defendant Trio had previously provided. (Compl. ¶ XIII, XVII.) 

Plaintiff alleges in her second claim that Defendant Trio breached the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by altering

Plaintiff’s reported income [on the loan application] . . . to assure

Case 2:09-cv-03087-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 01/13/10 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

Trio that plaintiff herein would ‘qualify’ for the large loan.” (Id. ¶

XXI.) In her third and fourth claims, Plaintiff merely incorporates

by reference her previous allegations and alleges that Defendant

American Home Mortgage and Defendant Aurora are liable for damages.

(Id. ¶¶ XXIV, XXVI.) Plaintiff references exhibits in her Complaint

by stating “see” the exhibit in connection with a stated allegation;

however, nothing in Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates Plaintiff alleges

a federal question. Plaintiff does not reference in the face of her

Complaint the specific RESPA provisions that Aurora references in its

Notice of Removal and alleges only state claims for false statements

and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Aurora also argues in its Notice of Removal that 

Plaintiff’s state claims “necessarily turn[] on some construction of

federal law.” “[A] case arises under . . . [federal law when] a right 

. . . created by [that law is] an element, and an essential one, of

the plaintiff’s cause of action.” International Union of Operating

Engineers v. County of Plumas, 559 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009)

(citing Gully v. First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936)(emphasis

added)). Specifically, a state-law claim presents a federal question

when it “necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually

disputed and substantial . . . .” Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc.

v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). “‘Arising

under’ federal jurisdiction only arises, then, when the federal law

does more than just shape a court’s interpretation of state law; the

federal law must be at issue.” International Union of Operating

Engineers, 559 F.3d at 1045. “In addition, when 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 theory–federal

Case 2:09-cv-03087-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 01/13/10 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

4

question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a

necessary element of the claim.” Rains v. Cirterion Systems, Inc., 80

F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Cortes v. Bank of America,

N.A., 2009 WL 4048861, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (remanding case after

finding that references to TILA violations in claim for violation of §

17200 do not present claims that “arise under” federal law);

California v. H & R Block, Inc., 2006 WL 2669045, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

(remanding case after finding that incorporation of TILA violation

into claim for violation of § 17200 does not “arise under” federal

law). 

“Construing [Plaintiff’s] “well-pleaded complaint, this

court cannot say that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily

depends upon construction of a substantial question of . . . federal

[RESPA] law.” Ultramar America, Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1414

(9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the federal court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, and this “case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the

Superior Court of Sacramento County in California.

Dated: January 12, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-03087-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 01/13/10 Page 4 of 4