Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00789-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX GARCIA AND SARA GARCIA, )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY )

and Does 1-20, )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:10-CV-789 AWI-GSA

ORDER ON DEFENDANT

ASC’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

ORDER REMANDING AND

CLOSING CASE

(Docs. No. 7 & 16)

On January 11, 2010, Plaintiffs Felix Garcia and Sara Garcia filed a complaint in the

Tulare County Superior Court alleging various claims for relief, including a Truth-in-Lending

Act (“TILA”) claim against Defendant America’s Servicing Company (“ASC”) and Does 1-20. 

On July 12, 2010, ASC filed a motion to dismiss. Hearing on this motion was set for August 23,

2010. However, on July 30, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. No defendant has filed

any answer in this case. On August 17, 2010, ASC filed a second motion to dismiss. 

Under Rule 15(a), “A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at

any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum v. Circus Circus

Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). “A motion to dismiss is not a ‘responsive

pleading’ within the meaning of Rule 15.” Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3; New v. Armour

Pharmaceutical Co., 67 F.3d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d

1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, where a motion to dismiss is filed instead of an answer, Rule

15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend the original complaint once as a matter of course without the

Case 1:10-cv-00789-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 08/24/10 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

need of obtaining leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a); Crum, 231 F.3d at 1130 n.3. An

“amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.” 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Here, ASC did not file an answer, but instead filed a motion to dismiss. As no prior

amended complaints have been filed, Plaintiffs were entitled to file their amended complaint as a

matter of course under Rule 15(a). The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint,

and the original complaint is treated as non-existent. Since ASC’s motion attacks Plaintiffs’

original and now “non-existent” complaint, ASC’s first motion to dismiss is now moot. 

 However, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the amended complaint and, as

required, this Court must remand this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The

basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the original complaint appeared to be based

on the presence of a federal question. The First-Amended Complaint, however, no longer 1

alleges any federal causes of action. The amended complaint does not support diversity

jurisdiction as the allegations reveal that Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Defendants IRA

Mortgage and Home Sales, Inc. and WMC Mortgage Corp. are California corporations. In other

words, Plaintiffs have dropped all of their federal claims. All that remains in the active

complaint are state law claims. See First-Amended Complaint. “If at any time prior to judgment

it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). “Subject matter

jurisdiction cannot be established by consent of the parties, and a lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect.” Gibson, 261 F.3d at 948; see also Lengyel v. Sheboygan

County, 882 F. Supp. 137, 138 (E.D. Wis. 1995) (“When a district court determines there is a

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded, even if the parties prefer to remain

in federal court.”). “Thus, the court can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of

The court notes that the original complaint did not contain any allegations of diversity jurisdiction.

1

2

Case 1:10-cv-00789-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 08/24/10 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

Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995). Here, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

and this Court must remand this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In light of

the fact that the Court is remanding the case, ASC’s second motion to dismiss is denied without

prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) ASC’s first motion to dismiss, which is Document Number 7 on the 

Court’s docket, is DENIED as moot; 

(2) ASC’s second motion to dismiss, which is Document Number 16 on the

Court’s docket, is DENIED without prejudice;

(3) This case is REMANDED to the Tulare Superior Court in accordance with

28 U.S.C.1447(c); and

(4) The Clerk shall CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:10-cv-00789-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 3