Aguayo v. Wachovia et al

Filing 8

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Schedule, Order to Show Cause and Setting Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 23, 2010. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LUIS AGUAYO, Plaintiff, v. WACHOVIA, et al., Defendants. / On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. On that March 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order in the state court. On that same date, Defendant Wachovia Mortgage removed the action to this Court. Plaintiff re-filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order in this Court. According to Plaintiff's application a trustee sale is scheduled to go forward on March 24, 2010, although Plaintiff does not set forth the time at which the sale is scheduled to occur. Having reviewed Plaintiff's application and giving the impending sale, the Court concludes a response from the Defendants is warranted. However, in their response, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this Court has jurisdiction to consider the matter. Although Defendants removed the action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, they premise their argument on a statement in Plaintiff's application to the state court that "Plaintiff's Complaint seeks rescission of the mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act." (See Notice of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-01178 JSW ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION AND SETTING HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Removal, Ex. B (Application for Temporary Restraining Order at 2:11-12).) However, upon review of both Plaintiff's application to the state court and to this Court, Plaintiff's request contains language referring to a different case with different defendants. (See, e.g., Docket No. 14 (Application for Temporary Restraining Order at 7:3-25).) Moreover, although Plaintiff's Complaint refers throughout to a Truth in Lending Good Faith Estimate, Plaintiff asserts only state law claims and his claim for violations of Section 17200 does not appear to rely on violations of federal law. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the `wellpleaded complaint rule.'" Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The wellpleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. "[H]e or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the "complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Accordingly, in their opposition brief to the ex parte application, Defendants shall address the issue of why resolution of Plaintiff's claims necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law and why this matter should not be remanded forthwith to the state court. Defendants' opposition to the application for a temporary restraining shall be filed and served by no later than 12:30 p.m. on March 23, 2010. The Court shall hold a hearing on the Plaintiff's application at 3:00 p.m. on March 23, 2010. That hearing shall be vacated if the Court determines it lacks jurisdiction over this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: March 23, 2010

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2