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).

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