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

Filing 46

ORDER Dismissing Case Without Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/15/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

Download PDF
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. No. C-12-3061 EMC ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as successor Trustee to JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 Plaintiffs originally filed this case on June 14, 2012, alleging a variety of state and federal 17 law claims against Defendants arising out of the pending foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ home in San 18 Pablo, CA. On September 24, 2012, this Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 19 Docket No. 23. In relevant part, this order dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims with 20 prejudice. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2012, bringing various state law 21 causes of action and requesting declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. From the face of 22 the complaint, it appears that Plaintiffs and at least one defendant are citizens of the state of 23 California. 24 On January 31, 2013, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be 25 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as no federal claims remained, and there is not 26 complete diversity of parties. Docket No. 43; see Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 811 (9th Cir. 27 2001) (“The Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, applies only if federal 28 jurisdiction independently exists”). Defendant responded on February 7, 2013, agreeing that the 1 case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 44. Plaintiffs filed a 2 response the next day, requesting that the Court retain jurisdiction, or in the alternative, that the 3 Court dismiss the case without prejudice. Docket No. 45. Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, that 4 this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and offer no argument as to why this Court 5 can or should retain jurisdiction despite this fact. 6 As the parties do not dispute that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this case is 7 DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike portions of the 8 First Amended Complaint are therefore DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment and 9 close the file. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 28 and 29. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 15, 2013 15 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?