Manuel Quintana v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc). Modified on 8/12/2013. (lc).

Download PDF
1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL QUINTANA, an individual, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., BEAR STERNS MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 2007-AR3 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-AR3; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, M.A., a National Banking Association; EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a National Banking Association; OAKTREE FUNDING CORPORATION, a California corporation; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, a California corporation; CENTURY 21 POWERHOUSE REALITY, a California corporation, Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-10124 DDP (RZx) ORDER DISMISSING CASE 1 Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this court on November 27, 2 2012, and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order on 3 November 29, 2012. The court denied the Application for Temporary 4 Restraining Order. On March 4, 2013, the court issued an Order to 5 Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of 6 Jurisdiction. 7 supporting brief in response to the Order to Show Cause, which was 8 granted by the court. 9 from March 14, 2013, to April 17, 2013. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a Plaintiff’s response deadline was extended Plaintiff filed no papers 10 until June 14, 2013, when he filed a Request to File First Amended 11 Complaint. 12 action. 13 The court granted that request and now dismisses the This court has an independent duty to determine whether it has 14 subject matter jurisdiction, regardless whether the parties have 15 raised the issue. 16 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). “[W]hen a federal court 17 concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 18 dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” 19 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (“If the court 20 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, 21 the court must dismiss the action.”). United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 22 District courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil 23 actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 24 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between . . . 25 citizens of different States.” 26 diversity of citizenship is required, meaning each of the 27 plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the 28 defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Complete Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 2 1 Here, the court finds that both Plaintiff and Defendant Wells 2 Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) are citizens of California. 3 Several courts in this Circuit have held that a national banking 4 association is a citizen of the state where its principal place of 5 business is located. 6 878 F. Supp. 2d 1093, (E.D. Cal. 2012); Singer v. Wells Fargo Bank, 7 N.A., No. SACV 12-801, 2012 WL 2847790 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2012); 8 Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, No. EDCV 11-00928, 2012 WL 174206 9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012). See, e.g., Taheny v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., These courts have therefore concluded 10 that Wells Fargo is a citizen of California. 11 878 F. Supp. 2d at 1094; Singer, 2012 WL 2847790, at *5; Rouse, 12 2012 WL 174206, at *14; Raifman v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, No. C 13 11-02885 SBA, 2012 WL 1611030 at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012). 14 court agrees with these well-reasoned decisions. 15 See, e.g., Taheny, This Additionally, Ruzicka & Wallace, LLP, identified as a 16 California Corporation, is a citizen of California, thus 17 independently defeating diversity jurisdiction. 18 (FAC ¶ 15.) Because Plaintiff and Defendants Wells Fargo and Ruzicka & 19 Wallace are citizens of California, the parties are not completely 20 diverse. 21 over this action under diversity jurisdiction. 22 This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have 23 original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 24 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 25 longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit ‘arises 26 under’ federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own 27 cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.” 28 3 “Under the Vaden v. 1 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted). 3 Here, none of Plaintiff’s causes of action is brought under 4 federal law. Plaintiff references a Consent Judgment in United 5 States of America, et al., v. Bank of America Corp., et al., United 6 States District Court No. 12-0361 in the context of his eleventh 7 cause of action, which alleges fraud and deceipt by Defendants 8 under California common law. 9 federal consent decree was violated is an issue governed by federal (FAC ¶¶ 20-21, 158.) Whether a 10 law. 11 Likewise, an attempt to enforce a federal consent decree is a 12 “claim ‘arising under’ federal law.” 13 action will not require the court to interpret or enforce the 14 Consent Judgment, so the reference to the consent judgment does not 15 create a federal question. 16 Abadam v. State of Hawaii, 248 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000). Id. Here, however, the Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 Dated: August 12, 2013 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?