Mora et al v. McManahan et al

Filing 9

ORDER Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on June 21, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 BERNABE MORA; STEVEN MORA, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 RICHARD MCMANAHAN; COLDWELL BANKER; ALEX BALONI; QUALITY LOANS; LITTON; NEW CENTURY; ALL PERSON CLAIMING LEGAL ABILITY; DOES 1-30; NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION; GAY DALES INC REALTORS; ROY C. GUNTER III, 18 Defendants. 19 22 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION located at 15061 Meridian Road in Castroville, California was wrongfully sold at a foreclosure sale.1 On May 17, 2013, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd referred this case to the undersigned 23 24 Case No.: 13-CV-01528 On April 4, 2013, Bernabe and Steven Mora filed this action, alleging that real property 20 21 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) judge for a determination whether the case was related to Case No. C11-02319 LHK, Mora v. 25 26 1 27 28 In reviewing Plaintiff’s case, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd noted that the alleged wrongful foreclosure of this same property has been the subject of at least four other lawsuits filed by either Bernabe Mora or Steven Mora (or both) in this court. See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, at 1 n.1. 1 Case No.: 13-CV-01528-LHK ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 1 Litton Loan Serving, et al., within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. ECF No. 5 (“Referral and 2 Report”). On May 21, 2013, the Court issued an Order relating these cases. ECF No. 25. 3 Judge Lloyd further recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter 4 jurisdiction, without prejudice to the Moras to pursue their claims in state court. Id.at 2. 5 Specifically, Judge Lloyd noted that the caption of Plaintiffs’ complaint in this action lists only 6 state law claims, and identifies no federal cause of action that could give this Court jurisdiction 7 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. The complaint also indicates that there is no diversity jurisdiction 8 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id. As a result, Judge Lloyd concluded that the complaint fails to identify 9 any basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the Moras’ claims. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 4, 2013, the full text of which is reproduced below: 11 Plaintiffs [sic] objection to Magistrate Judge Howard H [sic] Lloyd Report and Recommendation Plaintiffs are hereby requesting the subject matter jurisdiction be determined by the merit panel. And supplemental jurisdiction, further the merits of the case is intertwined with the issues there for a three judge merit panel is petition to determine subject matter [sic]. 12 13 14 15 Assuming without deciding that Plaintiffs’ opposition was timely,2 their objection fails to 16 17 address the jurisdictional deficiencies identified by Judge Lloyd. For the reasons Judge Lloyd articulated in his recommendation, the Court finds that this 18 19 20 action must be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to the Moras to pursue their claims in state court. The Clerk shall close the file. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: June 21, 2013 25 26 27 28 2 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge Plaintiffs were given fourteen days after being served to file any objections to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Notice was sent to Plaintiffs by U.S. Mail on May 17, 2013. See ECF No. 5, at 4. Their opposition was filed eighteen days later. For the purposes of this Order, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs filed their opposition within fourteen days of the date that they were served. 2 Case No.: 13-CV-01528-LHK ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION