Vasquez et al v. Select Portofolio Servicing, Inc et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/30/12. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 ** E-filed March 30, 2012 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 FRANCISCO VASQUEZ; ET AL., Plaintiffs, 12 v. No. C11-06183 HRL ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 13 14 SELECT PORTOFOLIO SERVICES INC., LLC; ET AL., 15 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 16 17 This dispute has a long history in federal court. The action arises out of plaintiffs Jose and 18 Francisco Vasquez’s claim that they have an interest in real property located in San Benito County 19 that was foreclosed upon and sold. Plaintiffs claim that the assignment of the note and deed of trust 20 was fraudulent and unlawful, and seek return of the property as well as money damages. Plaintiffs 21 sue a host of entities who were allegedly involved in the foreclosure and sale. 22 Plaintiffs Jose and Francisco Vasquez first brought this suit to federal court as a “removal” 23 of an unlawful detainer action that defendants brought against the Vasquezes in San Benito County 24 Superior Court. See Vasquez et al. v. Cal Western Reconveyance Corp. et al., No. C10-01679-JF 25 (Aug. 9, 2010). This court, finding no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, remanded the 26 case. Id. 27 28 Before the aforementioned case was dismissed, but after plaintiffs were alerted to the probable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit in federal court. See 1 Vasquez et al. v. Cal Western Reconveyance Corp. et al., No. C10-03411-PVT (March 22, 2011). In 2 this action, plaintiffs make the same claims as in the first case. Plaintiffs failed to pay the required 3 filing fee, and the case was dismissed. No appeals were taken from the dismissals of these two 4 actions. Shortly after the dismissal of the second lawsuit, plaintiffs filed a third action in federal 5 6 court. See Vasquez et al. v. Home Loan Services, Inc. et al., No. C11-01701-EJD (July 12, 2011). 7 Although the complaint is inarticulate and nearly incomprehensible, it seems to allege the same 8 grievance as pled in the first two actions. Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis were 9 denied, and the case was ultimately dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fee. Plaintiffs For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 appealed this dismissal, and on November 15, 2011, the 9th Circuit “summarily affirmed” the district 11 court’s judgment, saying that “the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to 12 require further argument.” See Vasquez et al. v. Home Loan Services, Inc. et al., No. 11-16698 13 (Nov. 15, 2011). This brings us to the present case. A new plaintiff, Olga Vasquez, has been added. The 14 15 complaint is again nearly incomprehensible, but clearly alleges the same grievance against the host 16 of defendants allegedly involved in the foreclosure and sale of the San Benito County property. Also 17 in this complaint is an overlay of additional complaints plaintiffs have about the disposition of the 18 third lawsuit in this series of actions. Plaintiffs express their discontent that this court dismissed 19 their case and that the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. They even suggest that “employees for the 20 [United States District Court] may be among parties acting on behalf of the defendants or their 21 attorneys.” Dkt. No. 9, p. 3 (“Amended Complaint”). In the present action, the court denied plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, 22 23 but reduced the filing fee to $250.00 and gave plaintiffs a deadline for paying the fee. Plaintiffs 24 never paid. 1 Dkt. No. 13. Accordingly, the action is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. 25 1 26 27 28 Plaitniffs have argued vehemently that the court should reconsider its decision to deny the IFP application. In support of their argument, plaintiffs have repeatedly informed the court that their IFP applications have been granted in their earlier cases. However, this court considered the IFP application before it in this matter and determined that IFP status would be inappropriate. On March 29, plaintiffs filed “additional documents to establish in forma pauperis status.” These consist of: 1) two pages of illegible handwritten pages; 2) the copy of a consent form filed in C11-01701-EJD; 3) an order granting IFP status in C10-01679-HRL; and 4) a page that appears to contain printed email 2 1 In addition, the case must be dismissed because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this 2 court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 3 460 U.S. 462, 476 (U.S. 1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (U.S. 1923). The 4 federal district courts have no jurisdiction to review state-court judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 5 Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005); see also Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th 6 Cir. 2003). “If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state 7 court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars 8 subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164. The court must consider 9 the relief sought by the federal court plaintiff—a claim that seeks the “undoing” of a prior state For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 court judgment is “clearly barred” by the doctrine. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 (9th 11 Cir. 2003). 12 The plaintiffs’ complaint clearly seeks reversal of the state court judgment they received in 13 the San Benito County Superior Court and on appeal to the Sixth Appellate District. Plaintiffs’ 14 remedy, if they are unhappy with the outcome in a state court action, is to proceed with the appeals 15 process in the state courts. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this court from hearing 16 plaintiffs’ claim, and the court finds that plaintiffs would be unable to establish subject matter 17 jurisdiction even if they were given leave to amend this claim. No matter what plaintiffs were to 18 claim in this or any subsequent federal lawsuit, this court will never be able to undo or change the 19 judgment entered by the San Benito County Superior Court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is 20 DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 CONCLUSION 22 The Court dismisses this case with prejudice and directs the Clerk to close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: March 30, 2012 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 messages between one of the plaintiffs and an attorney. These documents offer no support for plaintiffs’ request to have this court reconsider their application for IFP status. 3 1 C11-06183 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Francisco Vasquez 1829 Scharmann Lane Manteca, CA 95336 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jose Vasquez 1829 Scharmann Lane Manteca, CA 95336 Olga Leticia Vasquez 1829 Scharmann Lane Manteca, CA 95336 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?