Kononov v. Expedia Home Loans et al
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/26/2010 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent; the Court need not address the merits of Defendant's 18 Motion to Dismiss as those issues are now MOOT. In addition, Defendant's 21 Motion to Strike is MOOT. CASE CLOSED. (Reader, L)
<![CDATA[
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 28 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Local Rule 230 (g). 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARISA KONONOV, Plaintiff, v. EXPEDIA HOME LOANS, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:10-cv-00099-MCE-EFB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
----oo0oo----
This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in which Plaintiff Lisa Kononov ("Plaintiff") refinanced her home in November 2006. Presently before the Court is a Motion by
Defendant MortgageIT, Inc. ("Defendant") to Dismiss the claims alleged against it in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). also filed a motion to strike.1 Defendant
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 28
Defendant removed this case from Superior Court, County of Sacramento to federal court, Eastern District of California on the basis of federal question jurisdiction after Plaintiff's original Complaint made reference to possible violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. ("RESPA"). However, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does not formally allege causes of action under federal law. Although
Plaintiff references TILA, RESPA, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), Plaintiff only refers to them as a predicate harm for finding liability under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, a state law claim. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 86 & 88-89.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, "general federal-question jurisdiction [] is applicable only when the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court." Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1022 (First
(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 807-12 (1986)). "`Arising under' federal jurisdiction
only arises...when the federal law does more than just shape a court's interpretation of state law; the federal law must be at issue." Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs v. County of Plumas, 559
F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis previously added). Here, the state law cause of action, does not turn on construction of federal law. Id. Rather, it is influenced by an Id.
application of the federal law to the state law claim. /// 2
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 28
Accordingly, the Court acknowledges Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as being comprised entirely of state law claims. With only state law claims alleged, this Court ceases to The Court need
have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.
not address the merits of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 18) as those issues are now moot. In addition, Defendant's
Motion to Strike (Docket No. 21) is moot. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's suit is REMANDED to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. is directed to close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2010 The Clerk
_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
]]>
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?
