Sanchez et al v. WT Capital Lender Services et al

Filing 32

ORDER finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 20 Motion for Joinder. This action DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The hearing and Case Management Conference scheduled for 7/6/2012 ar e VACATED. Since this order effectively resolves the case, the Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/29/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
ALFONSO DELGADILLO SANCHEZ, et.
al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT

Plaintiff(s),
v.

13
14

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-05008 EJD

WT CAPITAL LENDER SERVICES, et.
al.,

[Docket Item No(s). 16, 17, 20]
15
Defendant(s).
16

/

17
I.

INTRODUCTION

18
In March, 2006, pro se Plaintiffs Alfonso Delgadillo Sanchez and Ana Bertha Sanchez
19
(“Plaintiffs”) purchased residential property in Salinas, California, secured by a Note and Deed of
20
Trust for $425,000.00. See Compl., at p. 6. Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan payments and the
21
property was eventually subject to a foreclosure sale in December, 2011. See id., at pp. 8-11; see
22

also Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Docket Item No. 16, at Ex. B.1

23
From what can be discerned, Plaintiffs initiated the present action in this court as a challenge
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants’ respective Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED to the extent
referenced in this Order. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Hite v. Wachovia Mortg., No. 2:09-cv-02884GEB-GGH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57732, at *6-9 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2010); Gens v. Wachovia
Mortg. Corp., No. CV10-01073 JF (HRL), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54932, at *6-7, 2010 WL
1924777 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2010).
1
Case No. 5:11-cv-05008 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

to the foreclosure. In response, Defendants WT Capital Lender Services, Sterling Pacific Lending,

2

Inc., and Chicago Title/Salinas (“Defendants”) now move the court for an order dismissing

3

Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 12(b)(1). See Docket Item Nos. 17, 20.2 Defendant Chicago Title/Salinas also filed a

5

separate motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively, for a

6

more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). See Docket Item No. 16.

7

Plaintiffs have not filed written opposition to either motion, and the time for filing such opposition

8

has passed.

9

Having carefully reviewed the relevant documents, the court finds these matters suitable for
decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

scheduled for July 6, 2012, will be vacated. Defendants’ Motion under Rule 12(b)(1) will be

12

granted and the Motion under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(e) denied as moot.

13
14

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain

15

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as “a short and plain

16

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the

17

claim needs no new jurisdictional support.”

18

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the

19

court’s subject matter jurisdiction and may be either facial or factual. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d

20

358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). As relevant here, a facial 12(b)(1) motion involves an inquiry confined to

21

the allegations in the complaint. Id. Much like other dismissal motions, all material allegations in

22

the complaint are assumed true, and the court must determine whether lack of jurisdiction appears

23

from the face of the complaint itself. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. General Tel. Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733

24

(9th Cir. 1979). “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the

25

actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir.

26
27
28

2

The joinder of Chicago Title/Salinas in the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
(Docket Item No. 20) is GRANTED.
2
Case No. 5:11-cv-05008 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1
2

1996).
Federal jurisdiction can generally arise in two ways: (1) from the presence of a federal

on a federal question, the court looks to the face of a “well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether

5

a cause of action is created by federal law or whether the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily

6

depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Christianson v. Colt Indus.

7

Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr.

8

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28, (1983)). For diversity, federal courts have original

9

jurisdiction where (1) opposing parties are citizens of different states and (2) the amount in

10

controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[A] party seeking to invoke diversity

11
For the Northern District of California

question, or (2) from diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For jurisdiction based

4

United States District Court

3

jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties” in

12

order to confirm that all parties are diverse. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

13

Cir. 2001).

14

Looking at the Complaint in this case, the court preliminarily notes that the pleading is

15

essentially devoid of any allegations supporting federal jurisdiction. This is, itself, a violation of the

16

applicable pleading standard provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). But overlooking this

17

arguably technical requirement,3 the basis for jurisdiction in this court is still not apparent. If

18

Plaintiffs intended to rely on the presence of the federal question as they suggest in the Complaint’s

19

caption, they have not referenced the federal authority which gives rise to their claims. The general

20

statement that this case presents a question of “whether or not the constitutionally afforded rights

21

have been abridged” is not enough to justify a federal forum because the court cannot assume or

22

even decipher which rights are at issue. Plaintiffs’ Complaint, therefore, does not support

23

jurisdiction under § 1331 in its present format.

24

Turning to diversity jurisdiction, it appears that Plaintiffs are citizens of California

25

considering the residential property at issue is located in this state. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that

26
27
28

3

The court has liberally construed Plaintiffs’ pleadings because they are proceeding pro se.
See Abassi v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002).
3
Case No. 5:11-cv-05008 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

at least one of the named defendants, WT Capital Lender Services, is also a citizen of California.

2

This allegation is confirmed by the documentation submitted by Defendants for this motion. See

3

RJN, Docket Item No. 17, at Ex. A; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be

4

a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal

5

place of business.”). Another defendant, Sterling Pacific Lending, Inc., is a California citizen as

6

well. See id., at Ex. B. Accordingly, complete diversity does not exist, and jurisdiction does not

7

arise under § 1332.4

8

Since Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the existence of either federal question or diversity

9

jurisdiction, Defendants’ collective motion must be granted and this case must be dismissed. The
dismissal will be without prejudice. Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Cir. 1999) (“Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff

12

may reassert his claims in a competent court.” (internal quotations omitted)).

13

III.

ORDER

14

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter

15

jurisdiction (Docket Item No. 17) is GRANTED and this action DISMISSED WITHOUT

16

PREJUDICE. The Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e) (Docket

17

Item No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.

18

The hearing and Case Management Conference scheduled for July 6, 2012, are VACATED.

19

Since this order effectively resolves the case, the Clerk shall close this file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: June 29, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Plaintiffs also reference supplemental jurisdiction in the Complaint. This doctrine does not
aid Plaintiffs here because it does not provide a source for original jurisdiction in federal court. See
Pac. Bell v. Covad Communications Co., No. C 99-1491 SI, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8846, at *9,
1999 WL 390840 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 1999).
4
Case No. 5:11-cv-05008 EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT