Mora v. Chicago Title Insurance et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERNABE MORA,

Case No. 5:15-cv-00590-RMW

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

13
14

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Defendants.
15
16
17

Defendant Chicago Title Insurance (“Chicago”) moves to dismiss the complaint for

18

Bernaba Mora (“Mora”) on several grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The

19

court submits the motion on the papers, and vacates the hearing set for April 17, 2015. Civil Local

20

Rule 7-1(b). Because the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint,

21

the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

22

Mora filed this complaint on February 6, 2015. This is at least the fifth complaint filed by

23

Mora in federal court related to foreclosure, a trustee’s sale, and Mora’s eviction from a property

24

located at 15601 Meridian Road, Castroville CA. See Case Nos. 10-CV-2854-LHK; 11-CV-2319-

25

LHK; 12-CV-3259-LHK; 13-CV-1528-LHK. All four cases resulted in dismissals with prejudice

26

for lack of jurisdiction. Mora generally alleges that a purchase at a trustee’s sale of the property

27

was improper. The property was not owned by Mora, but by his son.

28

5:15-cv-00590-RMW

1

1

Mora brings claims to “void and cancel all misrepresented documents,” “to void and cancel

2

grant deeds,” “negligence or fraud,” and “quiet title.” Dkt. No. 1. None of these claims state a

3

federal cause of action. All of the causes of action identified in the caption of Plaintiff’s complaint

4

are based on state law. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and Plaintiff has identified

5

no basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over these state law claims. Based on the

6

information in the complaint, there is no diversity between the parties, and the claims are not

7

based on violations of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (describing original federal jurisdiction

8

based on diversity); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (describing original federal jurisdiction based on a federal

9

question). Without a source of federal jurisdiction, there is no basis for the Court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

GRANTED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2015
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

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

5:15-cv-00590-RMW

2