Son P Dang v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte denying 18 motion to remand; denying as moot 6 motion to dismiss. Defendants may file brief and declaration in support of sanctions by September 15; plaintiff may file opposition by September 22. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

SON P. DANG
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. C-14-02587-RMW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION
TO REMAND

v.
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC.;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION (fka EMC MORTGAGE,
LLC); J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE
ACQUISITION CORP.; QUALITY LOAN
SERVICE CORP.; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

[Re Docket Nos. 6, 18]

Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiff Son P. Dang filed a complaint in state court alleging seven causes of action relating

23

to a mortgage involving defendants. Dkt. No. 1-2. Defendants removed to this court on the basis of

24

diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff

25

filed a motion to remand. Dkt. No. 18. The parties then stipulated to plaintiff amending the

26

complaint, and plaintiff filed the amended complaint on August 20, 2014. Dkt. No. 36. The parties

27

agree that the motion to dismiss is rendered moot by the filing of the amended complaint, but

28

plaintiff still pursues the motion to remand.
ORDER
Case No. C-14-2587-RMW
LRM

-1-

1

The initial complaint did not allege any federal causes of action, and was removed on the

2

basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs challenged that the amount in controversy requirement was

3

met. The amended complaint includes a new claim for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605. The inclusion

4

of this federal claim therefore gives this court federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

5

Plaintiff even acknowledges this fact in the amended complaint: “Plaintiff is informed and believes

6

that this Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Dkt. No. 36 ¶ 12.

7

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED, and defendants’ motion to dismiss is

8

DENIED as MOOT.

9

At the hearing, defendants orally moved for sanctions and costs for having to respond to the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion to remand, despite the express inclusion of a federal claim and statement of jurisdiction in

11

the amended complaint. Defendants may file a brief of not more than three pages in length

12

explaining any legal basis for sanctions under these circumstances and a declaration supporting the

13

reasonableness of any claim for attorney’s fees. The brief and declaration must be filed by

14

September 15, and any opposition by plaintiff must be filed by September 22.

15

SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: September 3, 2014

19

________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Case No. C-14-2587-RMW
LRM

-2-