Almutarreb et al v. Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. et al

Filing 43

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/7/2013. Case Management Conference set for 2/7/2013 re-set to 2/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Joint CMC Statement shall be filed by 2/21/2013. Motion Hearing 28 and 29 set for 2/7/2013 re-set for 2/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/31/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MUHAMED ALMUTARREB, et al.,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as successor Trustee to JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

No. C-12-3061 EMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

On June 14, 2012, Plaintiffs Muhamed and Sophia Almutarreb filed a complaint against

17

Defendants arising out of the pending foreclosure of their home in San Pablo, CA. At that time,

18

Plaintiffs asserted claims for Declaratory Relief; Negligence; Quasi Contract; violation of the Real

19

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; violation of the Fair Debt

20

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692; violation of the California Business &

21

Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”); Accounting; Wrongful Foreclosure; Fraud; and Quiet Title.

22

Compl., Docket No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

23

On September 24, 2012, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion.

24

Docket No. 23. In relevant part, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under the FDCPA and

25

RESPA with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2012, bringing

26

various state law causes of action and requesting declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

27

From the face of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs and at least one defendant are citizens of the

28

state of California.

1

Though no party has raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court has a sua

2

sponte obligation to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. See, e.g., Maniar v.

3

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 979 F.2d 782, 784–85 (9th Cir.1992) (noting that a district court has

4

power to remand a case sua sponte when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); Cal. Diversified

5

Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir.1974) (“It has long been held that a judge

6

can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”).

7

As there are no remaining federal claims pending, and it appears that this Court lacks

8

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties are therefore ordered to show cause why

9

this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are directed to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

file a response to this order to show cause with the Court by February 7, 2013.
The Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike portions of the complaint, currently

12

set for February 7, 2013, are hereby re-set for February 28, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. The Case

13

Management Conference (CMC) scheduled for February 7, 2013 is also re-set for February 28, 2013

14

at 1:30 p.m. A Joint CMC statement shall be filed by February 21, 2013.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 31, 2013

19

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2