Stolte v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER REMANDING CASE. The 2/24/2014 at 2:00PM Case Management Conference is VACATED. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/19/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

JEFFREY STOLTE,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 13-CV-04538 YGR
REMAND ORDER

vs.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

This case was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa where it

14

was pending as an action for unlawful non-judicial foreclosure. On October 1, 2013, Defendant

15

Nationstar Mortgage filed a “Notice of Removal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331,”

16

invoking this Court’s federal question jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff’s complaint included

17

claims arising under the Truth in Lending Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.)

18

On January 27, 2014, the parties in this action appeared at a Case Management

19

Conference. At that conference, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stolte stated his intention to amend his

20

complaint to remove all federal claims in order to eliminate federal jurisdiction and compel

21

remand of this case back to state court. (See Dkt. No. 42.) Defendant agreed that Plaintiff’s

22

removal of federal claims would necessitate remand.

23

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 44.) In the

24

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff stated that “[t]here are no questions arising under federal law in

25

this amended complaint.” (Id.) Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court agrees.

26

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sets forth claims of unlawful foreclosure and unfair business

27
28

1

practices, and seeks to set aside the trustee’s sale and the trustee’s deed upon sale. (Id. at 7-10.)

2

None of these claims is based on federal law. Thus, there is no federal question.1
In addition, although it appears from the face of the Amended Complaint that the amount

3
4

in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold requirement for diversity jurisdiction, neither

5

Plaintiff nor Defendants have established that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties.

6

Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County

7

of Contra Costa. The Clerk of the Court is further ordered to forward certified copies of this

8

Order and all docket entries to the Clerk of the Contra Cost County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Date: February 19, 2014
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

1

Moreover, a defendant’s counterclaims and defenses asserting a federal question cannot give rise to
jurisdiction under section 1331. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).
2