Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Renee Ramirez and Jesse Ramirez v. Aurora Loan Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 12, 2011

RENEE RAMIREZ AND JESSE RAMIREZ, PRO PER,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiffs, proceeding in propria persona, filed a "Quiet Title Action Verified Complaint; Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order; or in the Alternative for Order for Consolidation." (ECF No. 1.) However, Plaintiffs have not shown that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider their claim.

"It is a fundamental principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). "A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).

"[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs allege a quiet title claim under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 527, 1048 and California Civil Code § 2934a. (Compl. 14:8-21.) Plaintiffs also allege "the trustee sale was wrongly conducted in breach of Aurora Loan Services LLC's contract with the Federal National Mortgage Association." Id. 14:13-18. Further, Plaintiffs allege "the trustee sale was conducted in violation of [Defendant's] duties to Plaintiff, pursuant to the . . . Home Affordable Mortgage Program." Id. 15:16-18. However, such bare allegations are insufficient to present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Additionally, Plaintiffs allege "the Plaintiff lives in Yolo County and the Defendant has done extensive business in Yolo County." Id. 2:3-4. Since both parties appear to be California domiciliaries, Plaintiffs have not affirmatively alleged diversity jurisdiction.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' application for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED and Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED since the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claim, and the Clerk of court shall close this action.

20110912

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.