Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02052/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02052-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK WALKER and LINDA WALKER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 AMERICAN SERVICING COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-2052 PJH 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT

INJUNCTION OR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

On April 11, 2007, plaintiff Frank Walker filed, in lieu of a complaint, a Motion for

Extension of Time to Foreclosure [sic] which instituted this action. In his complaint, plaintiff

alleges merely that he was misled into a financial trap by defendant’s alleged failure to fully

disclose the expenses involved in a complicated re-finance procedure process. On June

21, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended motion for extension of time to foreclosure alleging the

same, and adding his wife as a plaintiff. Federal courts stand under a duty to raise and

decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction

may be lacking. Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"); Augustine v. United

States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Rule 12(h)(3), FRCP.

These allegations, without more, do not state a federal cause of action. It is unclear

how an action concerning a real estate foreclosure is governed by federal law. Nor does

plaintiff allege any facts concerning the residence of the parties or the amount in

controversy that would give rise to diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff accordingly has not alleged

any basis to support federal jurisdiction over this action. THE COURT hereby issues an

Case 4:07-cv-02052-PJH Document 15 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why plaintiff's claims should not be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff fails to file a written response to this order to show

cause by July 30, 2007, the case shall be dismissed.

In addition, plaintiff filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction or Preliminary Injunction

or Temporary Restraining Order on June 26, 2007. The Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s

Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As stated above, it is unclear whether the court has

jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that he has

complied with FRCP 65, which requires that he give notice to the adverse party of his

motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff also must also serve defendant with a copy of his

complaint. Plaintiff, however, may renew his motion if he alleges a basis for subject matter

jurisdiction and complies with FRCP 65. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02052-PJH Document 15 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2