Flores v. U.S. Bank et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 11/13/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IRENE FLORES, individually,

) Case No. 12-5749-SC
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DISMISSING CASE
)
v.
)
)
U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR BAYVIEW
)
FINANCIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
)
TRUST 2007-A MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH )
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-A;
)
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; JLM
)
CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
)
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; and
)
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff Irene Flores ("Plaintiff")

19

filed a federal complaint against U.S. Bank; Bayview Loan

20

Servicing, LLC; JLM Corporation ("JLM"); Mortgage Electronic

21

Registration Systems, Inc.; and one hundred unnamed Does

22

(collectively, "Defendants").

23

asserts nine claims based exclusively on state law and challenges

24

Defendants' right to foreclose on a mortgage taken out on

25

Plaintiff's home.

26

parte application for a temporary restraining order halting the

27

foreclosure sale planned for November 15, 2012.

28

App.").

ECF No. 1 (Compl.).

The complaint

On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex

ECF No. 5 ("TRO

1

Plaintiff avers that this Court has diversity jurisdiction

otherwise.

4

Id. ¶ 5.

5

California corporation with its corporate headquarters located in

6

Santa Ana, California.

7

complete diversity is not satisfied.

8

(c)(1); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.

9

2001) (citing Wisconsin Dept. of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381,

10

United States District Court

over her case.

3

For the Northern District of California

2

388 (1998); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806))

11

("The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200

12

years, requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court

13

against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from

14

each defendant.").

15

Compl. ¶¶ 3-4.

However, her complaint reflects

Plaintiff alleges that she is a California resident.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant JLM is a

Id. ¶ 8.

Accordingly, the requirement of
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1),

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case for lack of

16

subject-matter jurisdiction.

17

over this case, it does not reach Plaintiff's TRO application.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: November 13, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2