Patrick Nazemi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court given the absence of any federal claims in the operative first amended complaint. Defendants shall file their response to this Order to Show Cause by 8/10/2010. (gk)

Patrick Nazemi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Doc. 20

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 On June 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court for rescission, accounting, and an injunction. On July 12, 2010, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant") removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction in light of Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court. In that motion, Plaintiff concedes that Plaintiff's fourth cause of action under TILA is "not viable as it is untimely" and that "Plaintiff cannot prevail on his TILA PATRICK NAZEMI, as trustee of the NAZEMI LIVING TRUST dated November 13, 1998, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FIRST AMERICAN LOAN STAR TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, AND DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. ) Case No. CV 10-05093 DMG (FMOx) ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ) REMAND TO STATE COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1Dockets.Justia.com

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

claims." (Pl.'s Mot. Remand at 4-5.) On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, in which Plaintiff removed his TILA claim, thereby eliminating the only federal question that existed in this action. As a result, the Court has serious questions about whether this case should remain in federal court. Where no federal claims remain in an action, district courts generally decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(e); see also Carnegie-Melon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.8, 108 S. Ct. 614, 623, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988) (where "all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity--will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims"); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court given the absence of any federal claims in the operative first amended complaint. Defendants shall file their response to this Order to Show Cause ("OSC") by August 10, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 3, 2010 DOLLY M. GEE United States District Judge

-2-