Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Olga Urista v. Bank of America

October 18, 2011

OLGA URISTA, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BAC HOME LAONS SERVICING, LP, EDRINA PAVEL,
CALCOUNTIES TITLE NATION, JANET DORAN, AND DOES 1-10,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed October 18, 2011 **

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [Re: Docket No. 9]

Plaintiff Olga Urista filed the instant action in Santa Clara County Superior Court for alleged 19 predatory lending practices in connection with her home mortgage. The complaint asserts a claim 20 for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., as well as several state 21 law claims for relief. Defendants timely removed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), plaintiff Urista 22 filed a Motion to Remand. All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this action 23 may be heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 24

The court heard oral argument on this motion on October 4, 2011. Upon consideration of the 25 moving papers and oral argument, the court finds that the plaintiff has not offered adequate grounds 26 to remand this case and therefore DENIES the motion. 27

Ordinarily, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face 28 of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, "the plaintiff [is] the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by 2 exclusive reliance on state law." Id. Plaintiff Urista pled a TILA claim in her complaint. Complaint 3 ¶¶ 55-59. Yet in her motion to remand, plaintiff argues that removal is improper because (1) state 4 law predominates; (2) removal would result in needless conflict between state and federal courts; 5 and (3) concurrent jurisdiction in the state courts precludes removal. The court finds that none of 6 these assertions are well-founded. 7

Where state issues predominate and all federal claims are dismissed before trial, "the proper 9 exercise of discretion requires dismissal of the state claims." Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co., 654 F.2d 10 arising under federal law which are properly removed and which fall within the district court's subject matter jurisdiction." Kabealo v. Davis, 829 F. Supp. 923, 926 (S.D. Ohio 1993). Plaintiff's 13 only argument is that since "most" of her claims are based on state law, remand is improper. Docket 14 No. 9, p. 7. Plaintiff cites no legal authority for this claim, and the court is not aware of any 15 authority that would justify remand on these grounds. 16

Plaintiff offers no authority to explain this argument for remand, and the court is not aware 18 of any authority that would justify remanding the action. If plaintiff intends to invoke Burford 19 abstention, she is mistaken in doing so. See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 331 (1943). 20

Burford abstention is only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, where "complex state 21 administrative processes" are present and the case either poses difficult questions of state law 22 bearing on policy problems of substantial import, or federal adjudication would disrupt state efforts 23 to establish a coherent state policy to a matter of significant public concern. New Orleans Public 24 Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 361-62 (1989). The instant case 25 does not present any issues that could reasonably be viewed as meriting abstention under this 26 doctrine, and the court declines to abstain on these grounds. 27

C. Whether Concurrent State Court Jurisdiction Precludes Removal 28

A. Whether State Law Predominates 8

529, 536 (9th Cir. 1981). The text of 28 U.S.C. §1441(c) does not authorize the remand "of claims

B. Whether Removal Would Cause "Needless Conflict" 17

"The grant of concurrent jurisdiction is . . . not an express provision against removal and to 2 read it as such would represent an artificial and strained ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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