Jahani et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al.,

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 7/7/11 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of the State of California: Copy of remand order sent to Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

FAIZ A. JAHANI, an individual;
and KHADIJA JAHANI, an
individual,

14

NO. CIV. 2:11-577 WBS JFM

Plaintiffs,

ORDER OF REMAND
15
16
17

v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A;
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION,

18

Defendants.
/

19
----oo0oo----

20

Plaintiffs Faiz A. Jahani and Khadija Jahani filed this

21
22

action in the Sacramento County Superior Court on February 1,

23

2011, against defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor

24

in interest to, and d/b/a, Washington Mutual Bank, FA, and d/b/a

25

Chase Home Finance, LLC (“JPMorgan Chase”); Federal Home Loan

26

Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”); Quality Loan Service

27

Corporation (“Quality Loan”); Jeffery Scott Strachan; and Rudolfo

28

Tan Omega.

Plaintiffs alleged nine state law claims arising from
1

1

a residential loan: (1) fraud, (2) civil conspiracy, (3)

2

negligence, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) violations of

3

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.

4

Code §§ 17200-17210, (6) violation of California Civil Code

5

section 2923.5, (7) breach of oral contract, (8) breach of

6

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (9)

7

declaratory and injunctive relief.

8
9

On March 2, 2011, Freddie Mac removed the action to
this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1442, and 12 U.S.C. §
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have original

10

1452(f).

11

jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law); 28

12

U.S.C. § 1442(a) (agencies of the United States may remove

13

actions against them); 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f) (deeming Freddie Mac a

14

federal agency and all actions involving Freddie Mac as arising

15

under federal law, and providing that Freddie Mac may remove

16

action from state court).

17

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

18

on April 25, 2011, removing all claims against defendants Freddie

19

Mac, Jeffery Scott Strachan, and Rudolfo Tan Omega.

20

5.)

21

remaining defendants JPMorgan Chase and Quality Loan.

22

Freddie Mac is no longer a defendant and because jurisdiction was

23

based solely on Freddie Mac being a party to the action, no

24

ground for original jurisdiction over the case remains.

25

Sabater v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, No. 00 CIV. 8026, 2001 WL 1111505,

26

at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2001) (declining to exercise

27

supplemental jurisdiction following dismissal of Freddie Mac).

28

The court must now determine whether to exercise supplemental

(Docket No.

Plaintiffs’ FAC retained only state law claims against

2

Because

See

1

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

2

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental

3

jurisdiction . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all

4

claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

5

1367(c); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999,

6

1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that a district

7

court may decide sua sponte to decline to exercise supplemental

8

jurisdiction).

9

judicial economy, fairness, comity, and convenience.

28 U.S.C. §

The court’s decision is informed by the values of
Acri, 114

10

F.3d at 1001.

11

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be

12

considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise

13

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

14

Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).

15

“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law

Carnegie-

The court finds no reason that this is not such a usual

16

case.

17

well in advance of trial and retaining jurisdiction over the

18

state law claims would not affect judicial economy.

19

fairness concerns also weigh in favor of remanding the action to

20

state court: all remaining claims arise under California law, the

21

state court is competent to hear the case and would provide an

22

equally fair forum, and the state court may have a better

23

understanding of state law.

24

are equally convenient for the parties.

25

will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

26

remaining claims and will remand this action to state court.

27
28

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction was disposed of

Comity and

Finally, the state and federal fora
Accordingly, the court

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the entire action be, and
the same hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State
3

1

of California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all dates pending before

3

this court are hereby VACATED.

4

DATED:

July 7, 2011

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4