John R Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND GRANTING MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS 10 , 22 , 25 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 12/30/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN R. NORDBLAD,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS INDENTURE
TRUSTEE FOR NEW CENTURY HOME
EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2004-2,
BARBARA L. LAING, AND
DOMINGO CABRERA, JR, AS
INDIVIDUALS.
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-07542 DDP (VBKx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND GRANTING MOTION
TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS
[DKT Nos. 10, 22, 25]

19
20

Before the court are motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of

21

Civil Procedure(12)(b)(1) and (12)(b)(6) filed by Defendants

22

Barbara L. Laing and Domingo Cabrera, Jr. and Defendant Deutsche

23

Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”). (DKT Nos. 10, 22.)

24

Also before the court is Defendants Laing and Cabrera’s motion to

25

expunge a lis pendens filed by Plaintiff in the Los Angeles County

26

Recorder’s Office. (DKT No. 25.) The motions are unopposed and

27

suitable for adjudication without oral argument. Having considered

28

the submissions before it, the court now adopts the following

1

order.

2

I.

3

Background
As with four previous suits, pre se Plaintiff John Norlblad

4

brought this suit against Laing and Cabrera and Deutsche Bank in an

5

effort to set aside a March 4, 2012 non-judicial foreclosure sale

6

in which he lost ownership of real property located at 39943

7

Meadowcrest Way in Palmdale, California. Deutsche Bank acquired the

8

property in the foreclosure sale from Atlantic & Pacific

9

Foreclosure Services, LLC. (Laing and Cabrera’s Request for

10

Judicial Notice Exs. 2, 3.) Liang then purchased the property from

11

Deutsche Bank on October 11, 2013. (RFJN Ex. 6.)

12

After Laing moved into the property, she and defendant Cabrera

13

were served with a summons and the First Amended Complaint, as well

14

as a “Three Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy.”1 The suit, seeking

15

quiet title to the subject property, was filed October 11, 2013.

16

FAC at 3-5.) On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff recorded a “Notice of

17

Case Filing of Lis Pendens” in Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office

18

as instrument 20131512401. (Defendants Laing and Cabrera’s RFJN Ex.

19

18.)

20
21

II.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

22

“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over an

23

action that either arises under federal law, or when there is

24

complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the

25

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Tosco Corp. v. Cmtys. for a

26
27
28

1

As Defendants points out, it is unclear why Cabrera was
named as a defendant in this suit, as he apparently does not have
title to the property. (RFJN Ex. 6.)
2

1

Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). A court is

2

required, either by a motion or sua sponte, to dismiss an action if

3

it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1193

5

(2010). Federal courts must determine they have jurisdiction before

6

proceeding to the merits. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437,

7

439(2007); Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010). “When

8

subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Federal Rule of

9

Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of proving

10

jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.”

11

Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir.

12

2008) (citation omitted).

13

Kingman Reef Atoll

Here, Plaintiff has not asserted any basis on which this court

14

may exercise jurisdiction. Plaintiff included no discussion of

15

subject matter jurisdiction in his complaint and did not oppose

16

Defendants’ motion. Moreover, it is apparent from the complaint and

17

materials submitted by Defendants that this court may not exercise

18

jurisdiction in this case. The case does not present any question

19

of federal law, instead arising from common law fraud and state

20

property laws. Nor is there complete diversity. Defendants Laing

21

and Defendant Deutsche Bank are citizens of California for the

22

purposes of diversity, as is Plaintiff. (Laing and Cabrera’s RFJN,

23

Ex. 6 (DKT No. 23); Deutsche Bank’s RFJN, Ex. 16 (DKT No. 11); FAC

24

at 1.) This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

25

the present suit.

26

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule

27

12(b)(1), it does not reach Defendants’ arguments under Rule

28

12(b)(6).
3

1

III. Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

2

“A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive

3

notice that an action has been filed affecting right or title to

4

possession of the real property described in the notice.” Kirkeby

5

v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 33 Cal. 4th 642, 647 (2004).

6

Under California law, a lis pendens may be expunged on either of

7

two grounds: (1) the pleading on which the lis pendens is based

8

does not contain a real property claim, or (2) the claimant has not

9

shown a probable validity of the claim by a preponderance of the

10

evidence. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 405.31, 405.32; Justo v. Indymac

11

Bancorp, 2010 WL 623715, at *11 (C.D. Cal Feb. 19, 2010); Hunting

12

World, Inc. V. Sup. Ct. Of San Francisco, Cal. App. 4th 67, 70-71

13

(1994). In view of the court's dismissal of Plaintiff's case for

14

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, there is no basis to maintain

15

a lis pendens. See McDavid v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., WL 4062509,

16

at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011).

17
18
19

IV.

Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to

20

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and GRANTS

21

Defendants Liang and Cabrera’s motion to expunge the lis pendens.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

December 30, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
4