Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02163/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

19cv2163-GPC(MSB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAMADY B. CISSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

17161 ALVA ROAD OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit mutual 

benefit corporation, COMMUNITY 

LEGAL ADVISORS, INC., a California 

corporation, AUDREY C. SMITH, an 

individual; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv2163-GPC(MSB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

CASE TO STATE COURT

The case was filed in the San Diego Superior Court on November 28, 2018 with an 

amended complaint filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-2 Compl.) On November 

12, 2019, Defendant Community Legal Advisors, Inc., filed a notice of removal alleging 

that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

Case 3:19-cv-02163-GPC-MSB Document 4 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv2163-GPC(MSB)

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

The state court first amended complaint alleges causes of action to quiet title to 

real property, wrongful foreclosure and violation of U.S. bankruptcy automatic stay, 11 

U.S.C. § 362(a). (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10.) In its notice of removal, Defendant relies on 

Williams v. PFK Funding Servs., Inc., Case NO. C18-48 RSM, 2018 WL 3328398, at * 3 

(W.D. Wash. 2018) to support the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, in 

Williams, the Court did not specifically hold that it had jurisdiction over violations of the 

bankruptcy automatic stay but its ruling was influenced by other non-bankruptcy related 

claims that were subject to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

In fact, many district courts have held that a claim for violation of a bankruptcy 

automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not provide a district court with subject matter 

jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

However, “[a] Federal District Court does not have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy 

matters.” Park v. Nat’l City Bank of Indiana, Case No. CV 14-1354 SJO(PJWx), 2014 

WL 12564360, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (quoting Radke v. Holbrook, No. CV 09-

01355 GAF, 2010 WL 9010982, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010) (citations omitted)). 

Instead, the district court has jurisdiction over an appeal of a final judgment or order of 

the bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3). A claim for violation of the 

automatic stay “must be brought in the bankruptcy court, rather than in the district court, 

which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy case.” Eastern Equipment and 

Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, Bennington, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2001); 

see e.g., MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1996)

(claim arising from bankruptcy proceeding must be “brought in the bankruptcy court 

itself, and not as a separate action in the district court”); see also Radke, 2010 WL 

9010982, at *7 (“Plaintiff's allegations concerning the violation of the automatic stay in a 

bankruptcy proceeding must be raised in the Bankruptcy Court. . . A Federal District 

Court does not have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.”); Guancione v. 

Wachovia Mortg. Corp., No. 5:10–CV–3166 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 2991728, at *3 (N.D.

Case 3:19-cv-02163-GPC-MSB Document 4 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv2163-GPC(MSB)

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

Cal. July 28, 2010) (“to the extent that Plaintiff could establish a violation of the 

automatic stay, their remedy lies within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court”); 

Zimmerman v. Bellows, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1034 (D. Minn. 2013) (“Count V alleges 

that Defendants violated the automatic stay, for which Zimmerman seeks relief under 11 

U.S.C. § 362(k). Though no party has raised the issue, the Court determines that it lacks 

jurisdiction to consider this claim.”); Heghmann v. Town of Rye, 326 F. Supp. 2d 227, 

232–33 (D.N.H. 2004) (“Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over plaintiff's claims arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for willful violation of the 

automatic stay because all such claims must be brought in the bankruptcy court. The 

weight of the authority supports the defendants' argument.”). 

Accordingly, because the claim for violation of U.S. bankruptcy automatic stay, 11 

U.S.C. § 362(a) does not support this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2019

 

Case 3:19-cv-02163-GPC-MSB Document 4 Filed 11/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3