Dumas v. First Northern Bank et al

Filing 77

ORDER REMANDING CASE to Placer County Superior Court signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/4/12. The Preliminary Injunction issued by this court shall remain in place unless and until the state court determines it to be inappropriate. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
THOMAS STEVENS DUMAS,
10
NO. CIV. S-10-1523 LKK/DAD
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
O R D E R

13

FIRST NORTHERN BANK, dba
FIRST NORTHERN, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.
/

16
17

This case was originally filed by plaintiff in Placer County

18

Superior Court. The original complaint alleged both state and

19

federal claims arising from a loan transaction and subsequent

20

initiation of foreclosure proceedings on plaintiff’s property.

21

Defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of federal

22

question jurisdiction only.

23

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 20, 2010,

24

alleging both state and federal claims. ECF No. 23. Defendants

25

Paramount, Chase, and MERS filed motions to dismiss the amended

26

complaint, which this court granted in part and denied in part. The
1

1

court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, and plaintiff

2

filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint does

3

not allege any violations of federal law. No party has asserted any

4

other basis for federal court jurisdiction over this case. Under

5

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), district courts shall remand a removed case

6

“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the

7

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” This court

8

issued an order to show cause why the case should not be remanded

9

to the state court. ECF No. 73.

10

Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic

11

Registration Systems, Inc. submitted a response to the order to

12

show cause stating that they do not object to an order remanding

13

the action to state court. ECF No. 74.

14

Plaintiff Dumas and defendant Paramount Residential Mortgage

15

each submitted responses requesting that the court exercise its

16

discretion to retain jurisdiction over the action despite the fact

17

that the federal claims no longer exist.

18

Defendant Paramount argues that the court should dismiss the

19

claims against Paramount before remanding the case to state court.

20

In support of this request, Paramount asserts that the court should

21

consider plaintiff’s state-law claims “from a federal statutory

22

purview.” From what the court can gather from Paramount’s nearly

23

incomprehensible response, Paramount believes that a federal issue

24

remains because Dumas’ claims against Paramount could be dismissed

25

under the federal pleading standards.

26

////
2

1

Similarly, plaintiff Dumas, although he originally filed this

2

action in state court, asks the court to exercise

it discretion to

3

retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims. Plaintiff

4

asserts that doing so is warranted in the interest of judicial

5

economy.

6

“If the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though

7

not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims

8

should be dismissed as well. . . There may, on the other hand, be

9

situations in which the state claim is so closely tied to questions

10

of federal policy that the argument for exercise of pendent

11

jurisdiction is particularly strong.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

12

383 U.S. 715, 726-727 (1966). This pendant jurisdiction doctrine

13

is “designed to enable courts to handle cases involving state-law

14

claims in the way that will best accommodate the values of economy,

15

convenience,

16

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). Pendant jurisdiction is a

17

doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right, and when federal-

18

law claims have dropped out of the an action in its early stages,

19

the balance of these factors indicates that the case properly

20

belongs in state court. Id. (quoting Gibbs). Where remand, rather

21

than dismissal of a case will better accommodate these values,

22

remand is appropriate. Id. This is usually the case when the court

23

“relinquish[es] jurisdiction over a removed case involving pendent

24

claims.” Id.

25

In

26

this

fairness,

case,

and

the

comity.”

court

Carnegie-Mellon

declines

to

exercise

Univ.

v.

pendant

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action, which contains only state-law
3

1

claims. The contract, tort, and state statutory claims in this

2

foreclosure case are not closely tied to questions of federal

3

policy, and the court finds it appropriate for the claims to be

4

litigated in state court.

5

Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the state court for

6

further proceedings. The Preliminary Injunction issued by this

7

court shall remain in place unless and until the state court

8

determines it to be inappropriate.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

April 4, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4