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).
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?