Satish Shetty v. Selene Finance LP et al

Filing 7

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by no later than June 4, 2013. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (ms)

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

Date

CV 13-03483 DMG (MANx)

Title Satish Shetty v. Selene Finance, LP, et al.
Present: The Honorable

May 20, 2013
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
On May 15, 2013, Plaintiff Satish Shetty filed a Complaint in this Court against
Defendants Selene Finance, LP; DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.; Resmae Mortgage Corp.; Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Quality Loan Service Corp.; Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc.; U.S. Bank, N.A.; Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.; Credit Suisse
Securities USA, LLC; Chicago Title Insurance Co.; Donna Brammer; and Does 1-10, inclusive.
[Doc. # 1.] The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) fraud; (2) cancellation of
instrument; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) quiet title; (6) declaratory relief under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; (7) injunctive relief; (8) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq.; (9) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2934; and (10) an accounting.
Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question,
28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Compl. ¶ 2.) The only federal question asserted, however, is the claim for
declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 to 2202. The operation of the Declaratory Judgment
Act is procedural only and therefore does not confer federal question jurisdiction. Cal. Shock
Trauma Air Rescue v. St. Comp. Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538, 543 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Skelly Oil
Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671, 70 S. Ct. 876, 94 L. Ed. 1194 (1950)).
Accordingly, without a federal question to confer subject matter jurisdiction, this Court lacks
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1
Plaintiff also asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Compl. ¶ 4.) To establish diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete
1

In its jurisdictional statement, the Complaint asserts jurisdiction based upon a number of other federal
statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1342; 12 U.S.C. § 2605; 15 U.S.C. § 1692; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. ¶ 2.)
These claims are not included in the body of the Complaint and it does not appear that Plaintiff intends to seek relief
under these statutes. Thus, the passing reference to these statutes does not indicate the presence of a federal
question.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

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

CV 13-03483 DMG (MANx)

Title Satish Shetty v. Selene Finance, LP, et al.

Date

May 20, 2013
Page

2 of 2

diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each
plaintiff.” Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir.
2008) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806)). Plaintiff
is a citizen of California. (Compl. ¶ 6.) The Complaint also alleges that Defendants Quality
Loan Servicing Corp. and Security Union Title Company are California corporations and
therefore California citizens. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 16.) Moreover, partnerships and limited liability
companies are citizens of every state of which their owners or members are citizens. Johnson v.
Columbia Props. Advantage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The Complaint fails to
adequately plead the citizenship of Defendants Selene Finance, LP and Credit Suisse Securities
USA, LLC, a limited liability company, because it does not state the citizenship of all owners
and/or members of those Defendants. Accordingly, the Complaint also fails to establish that
complete diversity of citizenship exists.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by no later than June 4, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv