Ibarra, et. al. v. One West Bank, FSB, et. al.

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 12/19/2011 re 17 ORDERING that this action be, and the same hereby is, REMANDED to Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin. (Duong, D) (cc SJ Superior Ct) Modified on 12/20/2011 (Duong, D).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

JOSE A. IBARRA AND MARIA A.
IBARRA,

NO. CIV. 2:11-2452 WBS EFB

13
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO REMAND

14
v.
15
16

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FIRST
MORTGAGE CORPORATION and DOES
1-10, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18

/

19
20
21

----oo0oo---On August 3, 2011, plaintiffs Jose A. Ibarra and Maria

22

A. Ibarra brought this action in state court against defendants

23

Onewest Bank, FSB (“Onewest”) and First Mortgage Corporation

24

(“First Mortgage”), arising from defendants’ allegedly wrongful

25

conduct related to a residential loan.

26

violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601

27

et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.

28

§ 1681 et seq., and asserted various state law claims.
1

Plaintiffs alleged

First

1

Mortgage removed the action from state court based on federal

2

question jurisdiction.

3

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in which they abandoned their federal

4

claims.

5

action back to state court based on lack of federal subject

6

matter jurisdiction.1

7

17).)

(Docket No. 9.)

Plaintiffs now move to remand this

(Mot. to Remand at 2:20-21 (Docket No.

A defendant may remove an action filed in state court

8
9

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a First

to federal court if the federal court would have original subject

10

matter jurisdiction over the action.

11

courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil

12

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

13

United States.”

14

“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so

15

related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction

16

that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article

17

III of the United States Constitution.”

18

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Federal

Federal courts also have

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

“[J]urisdiction must be analyzed on the basis of the

19

pleadings filed at the time of removal without reference to

20

subsequent amendments . . . .”

21

Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1046 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sparta

22

Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, 159 F.3d 1209,

23

1213 (9th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

24

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental

25

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

Chabner v. United of Omaha Life

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs have subsequently filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of First Mortgage without prejudice.
No. 19.)
2

(Docket

1

claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

2

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

3

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

4

court may decide sua sponte to decline to exercise supplemental

5

jurisdiction).

6

28 U.S.C. §

Here, the Notice of Removal based original jurisdiction

7

on federal question jurisdiction, as the Complaint included

8

causes of action arising under federal law.

9

omitted their previously alleged federal claims from their FAC,

10

Because plaintiffs

this ground for original jurisdiction no longer exists.
Judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity

11
12

inform a court in deciding whether to decline to exercise

13

supplemental jurisdiction.

14

Court has stated that “in the usual case in which all federal-law

15

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

16

considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine--judicial

17

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity--will point toward

18

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

19

claims.”

20

(1988).

Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001.

The Supreme

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7

21

The court can find no reason that this is not a usual

22

case in which all federal claims are eliminated well in advance

23

of trial.

24

supplemental jurisdiction because all the claims in the FAC are

25

state law claims.

26

and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law.

27

As for judicial economy, this action is still in the

28

Comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise

early stages.

The state court is competent to hear the case

A status conference has not yet been held and
3

1

presumably discovery has not commenced.

2

been OneWest’s filing of a motion to dismiss, which this court

3

has not yet decided.

4

exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

5

The only step taken has

Judicial economy does not weigh in favor of

Lastly, convenience and fairness do not weigh in favor

6

of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

7

fora are equally convenient for the parties.

8

to doubt that the state court will provide an equally fair

9

adjudication of the FAC.

10

The state and federal
There is no reason

Accordingly, the court will remand this

action to state court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be, and the

11
12

same hereby is, REMANDED to Superior Court of the State of

13

California in and for the County of San Joaquin.

14

DATED:

December 19, 2011

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4