Mattie Belinda Evans v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing by no later than June 27, 2016 why this case should not be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti)

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

Date

CV 16-4147 DMG (Ex)

Title Mattie Belinda Evans v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
Present: The Honorable

June 20, 2016
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
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 June 10, 2016, Plaintiff Mattie Belinda Evans filed a verified complaint against
Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Countrywide Bank, FSB, Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, Christiana Trust, Recontrust Company, Inc., Fay Servicing, LLC, and
Western Progressive alleging (1) lack of standing in violation of California Civil Code §
2924(a)(3), (6); (2) constructive fraud and/or intentional misrepresentation; (3) actual fraud in
violation of California civil code § 1572; (4) violation of California and Professions Code §
17200 et seq.; (5) elder financial abuse in violation of California Institutions Code § 15601.30;
(6) cancellation of void contract in violation of California Civil Codes §§ 1670.5, 1667, 1689 and
Financial Code § 22302; (7) request for accounting; (8) account stated; and (9) request for
declaratory relief. [Doc. # 1.]
Evans contends that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which allows for judicial review of agency actions,
28 U.S.C. § 2201, which authorizes declaratory relief, and 28 U.S.C. § 2202, authorizing
injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 16.)
The Complaint does not raise a federal question. All of Evans’s claims are brought under
state law, and it is axiomatic that federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated
defense. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206
(2009). “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc.
v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). That is not the
case here.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 16-4147 DMG (Ex)

Title Mattie Belinda Evans v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.

Date

June 20, 2016
Page

2 of 2

Evans also does not have standing to sue in federal court under the APA. The APA
“authorizes suit to challenge a federal agency by any person adversely affect or aggrieved” by
that agency’s actions. Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 171, 131 S. Ct. 863, 866,
178 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2011) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 702) (emphasis added). Evans does not name any
federal agencies as defendants in this action, and the APA is therefore inapplicable.
Sections 2201 and 2202 provide authorization for federal courts to provide certain types
of relief, but do not themselves confer subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)
(authorizing a court to grant declaratory relief “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its
jurisdiction[.]”) and § 2202 (authorizing injunctive relief based on a declaratory judgment).
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing by no later than June 27,
2016 why this case should not be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT