Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00826/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00826-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 11cv826-BTM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONA LISA VILLAGOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv826-BTM

ORDER RE MOTION TO REMAND 

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant JP Morgan has filed an ex parte application to remand to state court. JP

Morgan had removed this action to federal court, alleging that Plaintiff’s claim for a violation

of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) established subject matter jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331. Since removing, JP Morgan changed attorneys and its new counsel seeks

remand.

Plaintiff’s TILA claim is set forth as a separate cause of action. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1640(a), Plaintiff has a private right of action to bring this claim against Defendants. See

also Bogosian v. CR Title Servs., No. 5:11-cv-02043 EJD (HRL), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

91072, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2011). Thus, the Court has original jurisdiction to adjudicate

Plaintiff’s TILA claim and may exercise removal jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b).

Defendant does not cite to, and independent research did not uncover, any authority

for the proposition that the Court can remand based solely on a defendant’s assertion that

it changed its mind as to whether it wants a federal court to adjudicate an action. Section

Case 3:11-cv-00826-BTM-MDD Document 8 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 2
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 11cv826-BTM

1441(c), the authority relied upon by Defendant, does not provide the Court with authority to

remand the entire action to state court. Rather, pursuant to this section, the Court has

discretionary power to remand state law claims, while retaining jurisdiction over the federal

claims. See Karnes v. Stewart, No. 10-1059-ST, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125671, at *2 (D.

Or. Nov. 29, 2010).

The Court declines to exercise this discretionary power. The Court will not address

the question of whether it will retain supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims,

as long as Plaintiff’s TILA claim remains actionable. Lacking authority to remand the entire

action to state court, the Court DENIES Defendant’s ex parte application.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00826-BTM-MDD Document 8 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 2