Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02303/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 - 09cv2303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVA PATEL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV2303 DMS (wvg)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

[Docs. 4-5]

vs.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, nka JP

MORGAN CHASE, et al.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion for leave to amend the

complaint, should this Court not remand the action. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion

for remand is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego on

September 9, 2009 for claims surrounding a pending mortgage foreclosure. (Pl. Mem. P. & A. at 1.)

The complaint states eight claims for relief. Two of those claims are federal law claims: violation of

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and violation of Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605. (Pl. Comp. ¶¶53-65.)

Concurrently with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary

Case 3:09-cv-02303-DMS-WVG Document 10 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - 09cv2303

restraining order to prevent the foreclosure sale. (Pl. Mem. P. & A. at 2.) The Superior Court granted

Plaintiff’s application and issued an orderfor a temporaryrestraining order. (Def. Notice of Removal.)

The Superior Court scheduled an order to show cause hearing on a preliminary injunction for

December 4, 2009. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants proceeded with the foreclosure sale

despite the temporary restraining order. (Pl. Mem. P. & A. at 2.) Defendant JP Morgan Chase was

the purchaser of the property, but it has since rescinded the foreclosure. (Id.)

On October 16, 2009, Defendants removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1.) On November 18,

2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. (Doc. 2.) A hearing was scheduled

for January 22, 2010. On December 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc.

3.) Defendants consent to the motion to amend the complaint. Defendants filed an opposition to the

motion to remand (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 8). On January 6, 2010, the Court

continued the hearing on the motion to remand to February 5, 2010. (Doc. 6.)

II.

DISCUSSION

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s RESPA and TILA claims, and

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff does not challenge this Court’s

jurisdiction, but argues instead that the Court should remand the case based on abstention principles.

None of the abstention principles cited by Plaintiff apply in this case. Burford abstention

applies in extraordinary circumstances, generally when there are complex state regulatory systems at

issue. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 726-27 (1996). The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine applies when there is a state court judgment, and the “loser” in state court files a federal suit

to challenge the state court judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,

284 (2005). The temporary restraining order issued by the Superior Court in this case is not a state

court judgment. Younger abstention and the Colorado River doctrine apply when there are ongoing

or parallel state court proceedings. Here, there is only one proceeding; the issue is whether it will

proceed in federal or state court.

Since this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, remand is not warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is granted leave to file her First Amended

Case 3:09-cv-02303-DMS-WVG Document 10 Filed 02/02/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - 09cv2303

Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02303-DMS-WVG Document 10 Filed 02/02/10 Page 3 of 3