Castro et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association et al

Filing 19

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order, And Order To Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (Doc. 16 ) is denied without prejudice and Plaintiffs' Motion To Add Doe Defendant (Doc. 9 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/6/2014. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

FERNANDO CASTRO and MARIA
DEL CARMEN CASTRO, as
individuals,

CASE NO. 14cv1802-WQHRBB
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

vs.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK; f/k/a
(Washington Mutual Bank);
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17 HAYES, Judge:
The matters before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Add Doe Defendant (ECF
18
19 No. 9) and Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order, And Order To Show
20 Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (ECF No. 16).
21 I.

BACKGROUND

22

On June 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Fernando Castro and Maria Del Carmen Castro

23 initiated this action by filing the Complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court case
24 number 37-2014-00021520-CU-OR-CTL against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JP
25 Morgan”) and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. ("Northwest"). (ECF No. 1-2). On July
26 31, 2014, Defendant JP Morgan filed a Notice of Removal, removing the case to this
27 Court. (ECF No. 1).
On August 4, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion For Remand Back to the San Diego
28
Superior Court.” (ECF No. 4). On August 5, 2014, Defendant Northwest filed a
-1-

14cv1802-WQH-RBB

1
2
3

response to Plaintiffs' motion to remand opposing removal. (ECF No. 5). On August 7,
2014, Defendant JP Morgan filed a response to Plaintiffs' motion to remand opposing
removal. (ECF No. 6).
On August 7, 2014, Defendant JP Morgan filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'

4
5
6

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6). (ECF No.
7). Plaintiffs have not filed a response to Defendant JP Morgan's motion to dismiss.
On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Add Doe Defendant. (ECF No.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

9). Plaintiffs seek to join PNC Bank, Commonwealth United Mortgage Company, and
Quality Loan Service Corporation as Defendants. On August 19, 2014, Defendant JP
Morgan filed a response. (ECF No. 10). Defendant JP Morgan opposes Plaintiffs’
Motion to Add Doe Defendant on the grounds that the Complaint relates exclusively to
allegations that JP Morgan violated the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights by initiating
foreclosure proceedings under the Home Equity Line of Credit. Defendant JP Morgan
asserts that Plaintiffs do not allege that PNC Bank, Commonwealth United Mortgage
Company, or Quality Loan Services Corporation had any relationship to the Home Equity
Line of Credit, or took any action pursuant to the Home Equity Line of Credit. Defendant
JP Morgan further contends that joinder of PNC Bank, Commonwealth United Mortgage
Company, and Quality Loan Servies would destroy the complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties.
On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Emergency Motion For Temporary

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Restraining Order, An Order To Show Cause Why A Preliminary Injunction Should Not
Issue seeking relief against PNC Bank and their agent Quality Loan Services
Corporation. (ECF No. 16).
II.

RULING OF COURT
Plaintiffs seek an Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order, And Order

To Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue to halt the sale of
Plaintiffs’ home on October 7, 2014. The Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel states: “[f]or
purposes of this Emergency Motion the relief is only sought against PNC Bank and their
agent Quality Loan Services.” (ECF No 16-2, Declaration of Joseph La Costa at 3). The
-2-

14cv1802-WQH-RBB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel further states: “PNC Bank and Quality Loan Services
have set a foreclosure sale for October 7, 2014.” (ECF No. 16-2, La Costa Decl. at 3).
Plaintiffs contend that they are likely to succeed on the merits because the Complaint has
alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that the PNC Bank and Quality Loan Services
Corporation have no right to title or interest in the Note and Deed of Trust that secure his
property.

(ECF No. 16-1 at 10). Plaintiffs further contend that a possibility of

irreparable injury exists because Plaintiffs will lose their family home. (ECF No 16-1 at
14).
PNC Bank and Quality Loan Services Corporation are not parties to this action and
the Complaint states no facts alleging wrongful conduct by PNC Bank or Quality Loan
Services Corporation. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction to issue the
Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order, An Order To Show Cause Why
A Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue against PNC Bank or Quality Loan services
Corporation because Plaintiffs have not filed and served a Complaint against PNC Bank
or Quality Loan Services Corporation. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff &
Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) ("Before a federal court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be
satisfied.") Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).
Plaintiffs seeking to add defendants to this action must file a motion for leave to
amend complaint. Plaintiffs Motion to Add Doe Defendant is denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion For Temporary
Restraining Order, And Order To Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not
Issue (ECF No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice and Plaintiffs' Motion To Add Doe
Defendant (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
DATED: October 6, 2014
WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

28

-3-

14cv1802-WQH-RBB