Margarita Moreno v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Manuel L. Real, In light of the dismissal of the Complaint the Motion is denied as moot. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

MARGARITA J MORENO,

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 14-4199-R
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

19

Before the Court is Plaintiff Margarita J Moreno’s (“Moreno”) “Emergency Ex Parte

20

Application for Temporary Restraining Order” (“Motion”), which was filed on June 20, 2014. The

21

Motion and the underlying complaint (“Complaint”) relate to real property located at 9321 San

22

Miguel Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280 (“the Property”). Moreno requests an order “staying the

23

Trial Court’s judgment by default and order for execution of the writ of possession.” Motion p. 1.

24

The trial court judgment that is the subject of the Motion was entered in a state court unlawful

25

detainer proceeding relating to the Property. Id. p. 2.

26

This case must be dismissed due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to

27

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “review of state court decisions may only be conducted in the

28

United States Supreme Court. Lower federal courts may not review such decisions.” Partington v.

1

Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 1992). “If claims raised in the federal court action are

2

inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication of the federal

3

claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of

4

state laws or procedural rules, then the federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject

5

matter jurisdiction.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

The instant complaint challenges the soundness of the state court proceeding which

7

culminated in the default judgment order. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 80 (“FNMA’s false representation of

8

ownership of [the Property] in the UD complaint, is a false, deceptive and misleading

9

representation and means in connection with the collection of an alleged debt in violation of

10

15 U.S.C. [§] 1692e.”). Adjudication of Plaintiff’s contention that FNMA has no ownership

11

interest in the Property would require this Court to interpret the state court’s application of state

12

laws and would undercut the state court’s order. As a result the complaint must be dismissed due

13

to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal is without leave to amend because any

14

amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir.

15

2008). In light of the dismissal of the Complaint the Motion is denied as moot.

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed.

17

Dated: June 25, 2014.

18
19
20
21

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2