Geetesh v. Capital One,N.A. et al
Filing
23
ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 14 Motion to Remand.(rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
GEETESH GOYAL,
13
14
15
16
Case: 12-CV-02759 RMW
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., sucessor in interest to
ING BANK, FSB; INTEGRATED LENDER
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff moves to remand this case to Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging that state
court has prior exclusive jurisdiction over the property at issue. Having considered plaintiff’s
motion and the record in this case, and for the reasons below, the court denies the motion to remand.
ANALYSIS
23
24
25
Geetesh Goyal (“plaintiff”) commenced this action in Santa Clara County Superior Court on
April 12, 2012, asserting claims for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Violation
of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., Promissory Fraud, Wrongful Foreclosure, Quiet Title, and
26
27
28
Privity of Contract. Defendants removed the case to this court on May 30, 2012. Meanwhile, ING
Bank (“defendant”) filed an unlawful detainer action against plaintiff on May 8, 2012. See Dkt. No.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
LMP
Case: 12-CV-02759 RMW
1
14-1, Ex. A. In that action, plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash and Vacate Default on May 21, 2012.
2
Defendant served on plaintiff a request for dismissal dated May 22, 2012. See Dkt. No. 14-1, Ex. C.
3
Another unlawful detainer action, brought by different individuals, was filed against plaintiff in
4
Santa Clara County Superior Court on June 4, 2012. See Dkt. No. 14-1, Ex. D.
5
Plaintiff asserts that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine requires that this case be
6
remanded back to state court. This doctrine holds that “when one court is exercising in rem
7
jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.”
8
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006). Plaintiff argues that the doctrine applies here since
9
the state court previously assumed jurisdiction through the two unlawful detainer actions. It is true
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
that an unlawful detainer action had been filed in state court before this lawsuit was removed.
11
However, although the parties have not submitted any evidence showing when the request for
12
dismissal was tendered to that court, it can be inferred that the request for dismissal was tendered on
13
or shortly after May 22, 2012 and before this action was removed on May 30. A request for
14
dismissal is “effective upon tender and all subsequent proceedings [a]re void.” Aetna Cas. & Sur.
15
Co. v. Humboldt Loaders, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 3d 921, 181-82 (1988). The filing of the voluntary
16
dismissal “stripped [the state court] of jurisdiction to take any further action.” See Franklin Capital
17
Corp. v. Wilson, 148 Cal. App. 4th 187, 192 n.6 (2007). Since the unlawful detainer was no longer
18
pending when plaintiff’s case was removed, the state court no longer had any jurisdiction over the
19
res,1 so this court was free to exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is inconsistent for plaintiff to
20
now argue that the state court had jurisdiction over the res in the first unlawful detainer action, when
21
plaintiff previously argued to the Superior Court that it lacked such jurisdiction. Finally, the second
22
unlawful detainer action had not been filed until after the instant case was removed, and therefore
23
does not affect jurisdiction over this case. See Montgomery v. National City Mortg., 2012 WL
24
196560, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (finding that since the court had obtained jurisdiction before
25
the unlawful detainer was filed in state court, the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine did not apply).
26
27
28
1
Since the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not apply as a matter of timing, the court does
not settle the question of whether an unlawful detainer action is in rem or quasi-in-rem such that it
would trigger the doctrine.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
LMP
Case: 12-CV-02759 RMW
2
1
Defendant's notice of removal asserts that this court has removal jurisdiction on the basis of
2
diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-4. Since plaintiff is not disputing that diversity jurisdiction
3
exists, and the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not apply, the court finds there is no basis
4
for remanding the case back to state court.
5
6
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to remand.
7
8
9
DATED:
August 8, 2012
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
LMP
Case: 12-CV-02759 RMW
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?
