Melnik v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/30/09 ORDERING that the December 3, 2009 order to show cause, 17 is discharged. (Becknal, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; and LANDSAFE TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants. _________________________________/ This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 21, 2009, defendants removed the action to this court from Placer County Superior Court on the ground that plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges numerous federal claims, and on October 9, 2009, moved to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint. Dckt. Nos. 1, 12. On December 3, 2009, the undersigned issued an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and directing defendants to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court in light of defendants' failure to file a copy of plaintiff's first amended complaint, and as a result, defendants' failure to establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Dckt. No. 17. The undersigned noted that "[r]emoving defendants 1 LYUBOV MELNIK, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2638 JAM EFB PS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

`shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal . . . , together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action,'" and that "[t]he burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause, acknowledging their failure to file a copy of the first amended complaint, but arguing that the error was clerical and therefore should not result in remand of this action. Dckt. No. 18. Defendants also filed a copy of plaintiff's first amended complaint, which alleges, inter alia, claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.; the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639 et seq.; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the December 3, 2009 order to show cause, Dckt. No. 17, is discharged. SO ORDERED. DATED: December 30, 2009.

2