Barkley v. Green Point Mortgage Funding Inc et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting pltf's 6 Motion to Remand to King County Superior Court by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
ALEX C. BARKLEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
GREEN POINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C13-1049RSL
ORDER OF REMAND

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand.” Dkt. # 6.

16

Plaintiff filed this action in King County Superior Court asserting state law claims arising out of

17

defendants’ efforts to foreclose on plaintiff’s home. Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,

18

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and U.S. Bank National Association removed

19

the matter to federal court based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding violations of federal law.

20

Plaintiff has not, however, asserted any federal causes of action and has expressly disavowed

21

any intention to seek relief under the federal statutes mentioned in the complaint.

22

The question of whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1331 must be determined by reference to the complaint. Mere mention of a federal law is not

24

“a password opening federal courts to any state action embracing a point of federal law.” Grable

25

& Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Rather, federal

26

law must create the cause of action or plaintiff’s right to relief must depend on the resolution of a
ORDER OF REMAND

1

substantial question of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-

2

28 (1983).

3

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act

4

(“CPA”) by (a) recording and relying on documents they knew or should have known were false,

5

(b) falsely designating MERS as the beneficiary of the deed of trust, (c) falsely designating U.S.

6

Bank as the beneficiary of the deed of trust and in the notice of default, (d) promulgating false

7

and improperly executed documents, and (e) violating state and federal laws, specifically the

8

Deed of Trust Act, the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, the Real Estate Settlement

9

Procedures Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. A finding that defendants violated federal law is

10

not essential to plaintiff’s CPA claim: plaintiff alleges numerous “unfair and deceptive” acts

11

that could satisfy the first element of a CPA claim, most of which are unrelated to federal law. A

12

claim supported by alternative theories does not “arise under” federal law unless each of the

13

theories requires resolution of a federal question. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.,

14

486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1996). Defendants

15

have not, therefore, shown that plaintiff’s right to relief under the CPA necessarily depends on

16

resolution of a question of federal law.

17
18

For all of the foregoing reasons, the exercise of removal jurisdiction would be

19

improper in this case. Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. # 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is

20

directed to remand this matter to King County Superior Court.

21
22

Dated this 7th day of October, 2013.

A

23

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

24
25
26
ORDER OF REMAND

-2-