Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01178/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS AGUAYO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WACHOVIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-01178 JSW

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE RE

JURISDICTION AND SETTING

HEARING ON EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Contra Costa. On that March 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte

Application for a Temporary Restraining Order in the state court. On that same date, Defendant

Wachovia Mortgage removed the action to this Court. Plaintiff re-filed an ex parte application

for a temporary restraining order in this Court. According to Plaintiff’s application a trustee

sale is scheduled to go forward on March 24, 2010, although Plaintiff does not set forth the time

at which the sale is scheduled to occur.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application and giving the impending sale, the Court

concludes a response from the Defendants is warranted. However, in their response,

Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this Court has jurisdiction to

consider the matter. Although Defendants removed the action on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction, they premise their argument on a statement in Plaintiff’s application to the state

court that “Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks rescission of the mortgage under the Truth in Lending

Act.” (See Notice of

Case 3:10-cv-01178-JSW Document 8 Filed 03/23/10 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

Removal, Ex. B (Application for Temporary Restraining Order at 2:11-12).) 

However, upon review of both Plaintiff’s application to the state court and to this Court,

Plaintiff’s request contains language referring to a different case with different defendants. 

(See, e.g., Docket No. 14 (Application for Temporary Restraining Order at 7:3-25).) Moreover,

although Plaintiff’s Complaint refers throughout to a Truth in Lending Good Faith Estimate,

Plaintiff asserts only state law claims and his claim for violations of Section 17200 does not

appear to rely on violations of federal law. 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The wellpleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or

she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the

well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd.,

463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Accordingly, in their opposition brief to the ex parte application,

Defendants shall address the issue of why resolution of Plaintiff’s claims necessarily depends

on resolution of a substantial question of federal law and why this matter should not be

remanded forthwith to the state court.

Defendants’ opposition to the application for a temporary restraining shall be filed and

served by no later than 12:30 p.m. on March 23, 2010. The Court shall hold a hearing on the

Plaintiff’s application at 3:00 p.m. on March 23, 2010. That hearing shall be vacated if the

Court determines it lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01178-JSW Document 8 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2