Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02987/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02987-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ALEX L. MARTYNOVICH a.k.a.

ALEXANDER L. MARTYNOVICH and

LEONARD L. MARTYNOVICH a.k.a.

LEONID L. MARTYNOVICH,

NO. 2:09-cv-2987 FCD KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; RESIDENTIAL

FINANCE OF AMERICA; ETS

SERVICES, LLC; BSM FINANCIAL,

LP; and DOES 1-50 inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants GMAC Mortgage,

LLC and ETS Services, LLC’s (“defendants”) motion to dismiss

plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs had originally

filed their complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Sacramento, and defendants filed a

Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 based on federal

question jurisdiction.

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02987-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 03/30/10 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

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry before the adjudication

of any case before the court. See Morongo Band of Mission

Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380

(9th Cir. 1988). Without jurisdiction, this court cannot

adjudicate the merits of this case or order any relief. See id.

(“If the district court had no jurisdiction over the subject

matter, the action should have been dismissed, regardless of the

parties’ preference for an adjudication in federal court.”). 

Plaintiffs’ original complaint alleged causes of action for

quiet title, violation of California Civil Code § 1632, fraud,

unfair debt collection, unfair business practices, breach of

fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing, violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1639(h),

and injunctive relief. Defendant removed the case, asserting

that plaintiffs also asserted violations of federal statutes,

including, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collections Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1692 et seq., the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and 15 U.S.C. § 1639(h).

However, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December

31, 2009, which is devoid of any federal claims. Specifically,

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, deceit,

violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et

seq., promissory estoppel, fraud by intentional

misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, slander of title, quiet

title, violation od the California Rosenthal Act, civil 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02987-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 03/30/10 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

1 While plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint references

the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and RESPA,

such reference is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. 

Federal jurisdiction may lie if “it appears that some substantial

disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of

the well-pleaded state claims.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of

California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern

(continued...)

3

conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory and

injunctive relief.

Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114

F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The court’s decision

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed

by values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id.

at 1001 (citations omitted). Further, primary responsibility for

developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. 

Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial,

district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d

1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n the usual case in which

federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of

factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”) (quoting

Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)). In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining

state law claims.1

Case 2:09-cv-02987-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 03/30/10 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

1(...continued)

California, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). However, “[w]hen 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 question jurisdiction does not attach because

federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.” Id.

(holding that the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim did not

give rise to federal question jurisdiction because it could be

supported by violations of the state law constitution, not only

violations of a federal statute); Lippit v. Raymond James Fin.

Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that

California unfair competition law claims did not give rise to

federal question jurisdiction because such claims are based on

unfair or fraudulent conduct generally, and not necessarily

violations of federal rules and regulations); Mulcahey v.

Columbia Organic Chemicals, 29 F.3d 148. 153 (4th Cir. 1994). In

this case, none of plaintiffs’ claims rely solely on violations

of federal law. 

4

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ complaint is REMANDED to the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of

Sacramento. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02987-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 03/30/10 Page 4 of 4