Daley v. MortgageIT, Inc. et al
ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 9/28/2010 ORDERING that the court REMANDS this action back to the Superior Court of California, County of Yuba. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
Daley v. MortgageIT, Inc. et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RISA F. DALEY, 13 14
v. MORTGAGE, LLC; KATIE SPIERS; PROPERTIES f/k/a WINDSOR 1-20 inclusive, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----
NO. 2:10-cv-2531 FCD KJN ORDER
15 MORTGAGEIT, INC.; GMAC
16 DEBORAH A. GORDON; SEVEN HILLS 17 CAPITAL CORPORATION; and DOES 18 19 20 21
Defendants. ----oo0oo---The court has reviewed defendant MortgageIT, Inc.'s amended
22 notice of removal to the United States District Court for the 23 Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) based 24 on federal question jurisdiction.
The court finds that the
25 underlying complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) fraud and 26 deceit, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary 27 duty, (4) aiding and abetting, (5) breach of contract, (6) 28 tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) negligence,
1 and (8) wrongful foreclosure does not present a federal question 2 and is therefore improperly before this court. 3
"The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is
4 governed by the `well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides 5 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 6 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded 7 complaint."
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist. Federal
8 v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000).
9 jurisdiction may also lie if "it appears that some substantial 10 disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of 11 the well-pleaded state claims."
Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc.,
12 80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of 13 California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern 14 California, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983).
However, "[w]hen a claim can
15 be supported by alternative and independent theories one of 16 which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law 17 theory federal question jurisdiction does not attach because 18 federal law is not a necessary element of the claim."
19 (holding that the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim did not 20 give rise to federal question jurisdiction because it could be 21 supported by violations of the state law constitution, not only 22 violations of a federal statute); Lippit v. Raymond James Fin. 23 Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 24 California unfair competition law claims did not give rise to 25 federal question jurisdiction because such claims are based on 26 unfair or fraudulent conduct generally, and not necessarily 27 violations of federal rules and regulations); Mulcahey v. 28 Columbia Organic Chemicals, 29 F.3d 148. 153 (4th Cir. 1994)
1 (holding that negligence action alleging violations of local, 2 state, and federal environmental laws did not confer federal 3 question jurisdiction). 4
In this case, plaintiff's claims do not rely solely on Indeed, while defendant contends that
5 violations of federal law.
6 "[p]laintiff's claims should be characterized as federal claims 7 for relief," none of plaintiff's claims are brought pursuant to 8 or even reference federal law.
As such, resolution of potential
9 federal issues is not essential, and thus, determination of 10 federal law is not a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded 11 state claims.
See Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating
12 Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988) ("[A] claim supported by 13 alternative theories in the complaint may not form the basis for 14 [federal] jurisdiction unless [federal] law is essential to each 15 of those theories."). 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 Accordingly, the court REMANDS this action back to the
17 Superior Court of California, County of Yuba.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 DATED: September 28, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?