Jon Cordes v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc
Filing
10
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney: Remanding case to Orange County Superior, Case number 30-2012-00540323-SC-SC-HLH. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rla)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00315-CJC(RNBx)
Date: May 22, 2012
Title: JON CORDES v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dwayne Roberts
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
On January 13, 2012, pro se Plaintiff Jon Cordes filed the present action against
Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) in California state small claims court
for a violation of California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA”). Mr.
Cordes’ complaint requests relief in the form of $1.00, costs, and an order requiring SPS
to “instruct the credit reporting agencies ― Experian, Equifax and TransUnion ― to
delete all derogatory references to LOAN(s) # 2770011558103, and to show loan(s) as
PAID AS AGREED and NEVER BEEN LATE or COMPLETE DELETION OF THE
TRADELINE.” (Pl.’s Compl., Attach.) On February, 29, 2012, SPS removed the action
to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court,
on its own motion, REMANDS this suit to state court because it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
A civil action brought in a state court but over which a federal court may exercise
original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant to a federal district court. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, “[a] suit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a) only if it could have been brought there originally.” Sullivan v. First Affiliated
Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). The burden of establishing subject
matter jurisdiction falls on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that: (1) involve
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00315-CJC(RNBx)
Date: May 22, 2012
Page 2
questions arising under federal law; or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an
amount in controversy of over $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; id. § 1332.
SPS has failed to meet its burden to establish federal question jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331. A cause of action arises under federal law only when a question
arising under federal law appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). Here, despite references to federal
law, it is clear from the face of the complaint that Mr. Cordes bases his claim for relief on
a violation of the CCRA and not the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”)
or the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In the section of the small claims complaint
form for a description of the claim or claims, Mr. Cordes asserts that he claims SPS owes
him one dollar, because it “violated CA Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(CCRAA) among others, which provided for private rights of action to enforce them.”
(Pl.’s Compl., at 2.) His attachment states that “California Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) gives
me a direct right of action against furnishers of credit information for reporting
‘incomplete or inaccurate’ information [that is] specifically exempted from federal
preemption form the FCRA.” (Id., Attach.) In his prayer for relief portion of his
attachment, Mr. Cordes requests relief based on the CCRA and California civil
procedure. No such references to a right of action, or any action under a federal statute is
made. While it is true that Mr. Cordes makes references to terms used in RESPA and the
FCRA, cites to federal cases, and makes vague references to other credit laws, this is
insufficient to establish that Mr. Cordes’s complaint states claims for violation of the two
federal statutes. Accordingly, SPS has failed to demonstrate that this Court has federal
question jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby REMANDED to state court.
jsk
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk dr
]]>
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?
