Don Williams et al v. One West Bank FSB et al

Filing 35

ORDER that the Court hereby dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs choose, they may of course pursue their claims in state court. In addition, the following motions are vacated: 10 , 16 , 18 , 19 and 20 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc) Modified on 7/24/2012 (lc).

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DON WILLIAMS, an individual; PATRICIA WILLIAMS, an individual, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiffs, v. ONE WEST BANK, FSB; MTS, INC., a California corporation dba MERIDIAN TRUST DEED SERVICE; LSI TITLE aka LSI TITLE COMPANY, a Florida corporation; INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., a Federal Savings Bank; STEPHEN GOODELL, an individual; COUNTRY CREEK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation, 21 22 Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-04692 DDP (MRWx) ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 23 24 Plaintiffs filed this action on May 29, 2012, alleging that 25 Defendants violated numerous state laws in selling Plaintiffs’ 26 property at a trustee’s sale. 27 allegation as to jurisdiction is that: “The transactions and 28 events, which are the subject matter of this Complaint, all In their Complaint, Plaintiffs’ only 1 occurred within the County of San Bernardino, State of California.” 2 (Compl. ¶ 17.) 3 The court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 4 this action. Because Plaintiffs allege only state law claims, 5 there is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 1331. 7 Section 1332 provides that district courts have original 8 jurisdiction “of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 9 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and Nor is there diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 10 costs and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 11 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 12 required, meaning each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a 13 different state than each of the defendants. 14 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 15 Plaintiffs and Defendants Steven Goodell and Country Creek 16 Development Company are citizens of California. 17 7-8; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Docket No. 18, at 3-4.). 18 28 Complete diversity of citizenship is Caterpillar Inc. v. Here, the parties agree that (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, Accordingly, the court hereby dismisses this case for lack of 19 subject matter jurisdiction. 20 course pursue their claims in state court. 21 following motions are vacated: 10, 16, 18, 19 and 20. If Plaintiffs choose, they may of In addition, the 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: July 24, 2012 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?