Mora v. MortgageIT, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 09/28/10 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to Yolo County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

Mora v. MortgageIT, Inc. et al

Doc. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 JESUS MORA, 13 14
v. BANK, F.S.B. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUSTEE OF THE INDYMAC INDX 2006-AR-14, MORTGAGE Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

NO. 2:10-cv-2548 FCD ORDER

15 MORTGAGEIT, INC.; ONEWEST 17 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST

16 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS 18 PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, 19 FORECLOSURE CORPORATION; 20 RANDOLPH BERKELEY MARTIN 21 MORTGAGE; and DOES 1-20 22 23 24 25
inclusive, Defendants. d/b/a/ UNION FIDELITY SERIES 2006-AR-14; AZTEC TERENCE MICHAEL FLANNIGAN;

----oo0oo---The court has reviewed defendant MortgageIT, Inc.'s amended

26 notice of removal to the United States District Court for the 27 Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) based 28 on federal question jurisdiction.
The court finds that the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 underlying complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) fraud and 2 deceit, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary 3 duty, (4) aiding and abetting, (5) breach of contract, (6) 4 tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) negligence, 5 and (8) wrongful foreclosure does not present a federal question 6 and is therefore improperly before this court. 7
"The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is

8 governed by the `well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides 9 that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 10 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded 11 complaint."
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist. Federal

12 v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000).

13 jurisdiction may also lie if "it appears that some substantial 14 disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of 15 the well-pleaded state claims."
Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc.,

16 80 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of 17 California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern 18 California, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983).
However, "[w]hen a claim can

19 be supported by alternative and independent theories ­ one of 20 which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law 21 theory ­ federal question jurisdiction does not attach because 22 federal law is not a necessary element of the claim."
Id.

23 (holding that the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim did not 24 give rise to federal question jurisdiction because it could be 25 supported by violations of the state law constitution, not only 26 violations of a federal statute); Lippit v. Raymond James Fin. 27 Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 California unfair competition law claims did not give rise to
2

1 federal question jurisdiction because such claims are based on 2 unfair or fraudulent conduct generally, and not necessarily 3 violations of federal rules and regulations); Mulcahey v. 4 Columbia Organic Chemicals, 29 F.3d 148. 153 (4th Cir. 1994) 5 (holding that negligence action alleging violations of local, 6 state, and federal environmental laws did not confer federal 7 question jurisdiction). 8
In this case, plaintiff's claims do not rely solely on Indeed, while defendant contends that

9 violations of federal law.

10 "[p]laintiff's claims should be characterized as federal claims 11 for relief," none of plaintiff's claims are brought pursuant to 12 or even reference federal law.
As such, resolution of potential

13 federal issues is not essential, and thus, determination of 14 federal law is not a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded 15 state claims.
See Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating

16 Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988) ("[A] claim supported by 17 alternative theories in the complaint may not form the basis for 18 [federal] jurisdiction unless [federal] law is essential to each 19 of those theories."). 20 22 24 25 26 27 28
3 Accordingly, the court REMANDS this action back to the

21 Superior Court of California, County of Yolo.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 DATED: September 28, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE