Forward et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 65

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand 52 is GRANTED. Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. SC119299. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-898 CAS (MRWx)

Title

JEFFREY FORWARD, ET AL. V. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 17, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): MOTION TO REMAND (Docket #52, filed
May 17, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of June 24, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
Plaintiffs filed this case in Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 5,
2012, alleging state and federal claims arising out of their mortgage loan. On February 7,
2013, this case was removed to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
On April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Docket No. 44. On May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which alleges no federal claims. Consequently, on May 17, 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand, arguing that the Court should remand this case due to the
absence of federal claims. On June 3, 2013, defendants’ filed an opposition to the motion
to remand, arguing that even if federal question jurisdiction no longer exists, the Court
should nonetheless exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case.
All of plaintiffs’ remaining claims against defendants arise under state law and do
not provide an independent basis for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. Because the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. This decision is “purely discretionary.”
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see also Chicago v.
International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (noting that relevant factors
CV-13-898 CAS (MRWx) (06/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-898 CAS (MRWx)

Date

June 17, 2013

Title

JEFFREY FORWARD, ET AL. V. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, ET AL.

for this determination include “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the
state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between
the state and federal claims”); Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th
Cir. 1997) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,
the balance of factors will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims[.]”) (citations and alterations omitted).1 The Court notes that
the remaining claims—apparently centered around a loan secured by real property—are
the type of claims that are particularly suitable for adjudication in state court. Moreover,
the prejudice to any party to this action is limited because the litigation has not yet
progressed to discovery. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and therefore dismisses these claims without
prejudice.2
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

CMJ

1

The Ninth Circuit holds that the a court should weigh the “values of economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity” in making this determination. Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001
(citation omitted).
2

Defendants also argue that the Court should order plaintiffs to pay defendants’
costs and attorney fees associated with the removal, because, by pleading federal claims
in their initial complaint but dismissing them in order to avoid federal jurisdiction,
plaintiffs have engaged in vexatious forum manipulation. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“An
order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,
including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.”). The Court declines to
award attorney fees because there is no evidence that plaintiffs – who are proceeding pro
se and hence likely not engaging in sophisticated litigation tactics to harass defendants –
have acted in bad faith.
CV-13-898 CAS (MRWx) (06/13)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2