Mark Kerans et al v. BAC Home Loans Servcing LP et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (db)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 12-670 AG (JPRx)
Title
MARK KERANS, et al. v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORP., et al.
Present: The
Honorable
May 11, 2012
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
Date
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Pro se Plaintiffs Mark Kerans and Theresa Kerans (“Plaintiffs”) filed a foreclosurerelated action on March 7, 2012 against Defendants New Century Mortgage Group, BAC
Home Loans, ReconTrust Company, Redline Investments, and Tymeout LP. (Kerans v.
New Century Mortgage Group, Case No. SACV 12-356 AG (JPRx) (Kerans I).) The
caption of the Complaint stated “FOR THE RECORD WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
ENJOIN WRONGFUL EVICTION.” The Court dismissed that action on March 16,
2012 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a second, nearly identical, foreclosure-related action in
this Court against Defendants BAC Home Loans, Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, Redline Investments, and Tymeout LP. The caption of the Complaint again
states “FOR THE RECORD WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ENJOIN WRONGFUL
EVICTION.”
The jurisdiction section of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in Kerans I alleged diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But elsewhere in that Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that all
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 12-670 AG (JPRx)
Date
May 11, 2012
Title
MARK KERANS, et al. v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORP., et al.
parties were citizens of California and that the amount in controversy was $10,000.
This time, Plaintiffs state that “[j]urisdiction . . . is based on the 7th amendment to the Bill
of rights as this is a ‘suit at Common Law’ and the value in controversy exceeds twenty
dollars. Jurisdiction is further based on Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution
which prohibits states from making anything but bold [sic] and silver coin a tender in
payments of debts.” (Complaint at 2-3.) As in Kerans I, Plaintiffs’ claims are not
specifically identified anywhere in the Complaint.
Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the Court told
Plaintiffs when dismissing Kerans I for the same reason, their claims for wrongful
foreclosure and wrongful eviction appear more appropriate for resolution in state court.
DISPOSITION
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before
filing further lawsuits in federal court, Plaintiffs are urged to review the vexatious litigant
provisions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.
:
Initials of
Preparer
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
lmb
0
]]>
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?
