Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03390/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CHRISTINA STOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA;

CHASE BANK, N.A.; LH MORTGAGE,

INC. DBA THE STRONG SOURCE,

Defendants. /

 

NO. CIV. 2:09-3390 WBS EFB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR REMAND

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Christina Stowers brought this action in

state court against defendants Washington Mutual Bank, FA

(“Washington Mutual”), Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), and LH

Mortgage, Inc. d/b/a/ The Strong Source (“LH Mortgage”) alleging

fraud, constructive fraud, actual fraud (Cal. Civ. Code § 1572),

breach of broker’s duty to disclose, declaratory relief,

negligence, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement

Case 2:09-cv-03390-WBS-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/26/10 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

1 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., An Acquirer of Certain

Assets and Liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation Acting As Receiver was erroneously

sued as Chase Bank, N.A. 

2 Chase filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s

motion. (Docket No. 14.) LH Mortgage has not yet appeared in

this action.

2

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, and the

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§

1788-1788.33 (“Rosenthal Act”). Defendants Washington Mutual and

Chase1

 subsequently removed the action to this court on the basis

of federal question jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1.) After

dismissing her RESPA claim (Docket No. 8), plaintiff now moves

the court to remand the case to state court. Defendants do not

oppose the remand.2

Federal courts have original subject matter

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. When removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is based on

federal question jurisdiction and all federal claims drop from

the proceedings, “[i]t is generally within a district court’s

discretion either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the

pendent state claims or to remand them to state court.” Harrell

v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991)

(citing Price v. PSA, Inc., 829 F.2d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

A case “arises under” federal law when federal law

either creates the cause of action or a state law claim

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

and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without

disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and

Case 2:09-cv-03390-WBS-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/26/10 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

state judicial responsibility.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.

v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see Franchise

Tax, 463 U.S. at 27-28. When a plaintiff only pleads state

causes of action, “original federal jurisdiction is unavailable

unless it appears that some substantial, disputed question of

federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded

state claims, or that one or the other claim is ‘really’ one of

federal law.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd.

of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1383 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for

S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint no longer pleads any federal

causes of action, but it does make tangential references to

federal statutes. (See Compl. ¶¶ 17, 101-107.) It is a “longsettled understanding that the mere presence of a federal issue

in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federalquestion jurisdiction.” Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Servs.,

340 F.3d 1033, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm.,

Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)). A substantial

federal question does not exist simply because a complaint makes

a mere reference to a federal statute. Id. at 1040-41; see also

Rains v. Criterion Sys. Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996)

(references to Title VII are insufficient to establish federal

jurisdiction in a wrongful termination action). Instead, the

federal question must be “a necessary element of the well-pleaded

state claim” or the plaintiff’s right to relief must rely on the

resolution of a substantial, disputed question of federal law. 

Lippitt, 340 F.3d at 1042. 

Case 2:09-cv-03390-WBS-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/26/10 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

While plaintiff’s Rosenthal Act claim mentions the

federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-

1692p (“FDCPA”), this cause of can be proved independently under

state law and application of the FDCPA is not a substantial or

“necessary element” of the claims. See In re Countrywide Fin.

Corp. Mortg. Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., No. 08md1998,

2008 WL 5450351, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2008) (finding no

substantial federal question where TILA and RESPA did not need to

be applied to resolve plaintiff’s claims); Fardella v. Downey

Sav. & Loan Ass’n, No. 00-4394, 2001 WL 492442, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

May 9, 2001) (finding no federal question jurisdiction because

plaintiff could prove allegedly unfair broker rebate violated

California law independently of RESPA or TILA). 

Because no party opposes the remand, the court will

grant plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ pending motion

to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot, and this

action be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED to Superior Court of

the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin.

DATED: February 25, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-03390-WBS-EFB Document 18 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 4