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.

Jimenez v. Bank of America Home Loans Servicing Lp

February 2, 2012

JIMENEZ
v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Margaret M. Morrow

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable MARGARET M. MORROW

ANEL HUERTA N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

I. BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2011, plaintiff Silvia Jimenez ("Jimenez") filed this action against defendant Bank of America Home Loans Servicing LP ("BOA"), Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM"), Recontrust ("Recon"), Maria Zendejas ("Zendejas"), and Does 1-10 inclusive.*fn1 Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of any party and asserts no specific basis for the court's jurisdiction.*fn2

On or about July 7, 2007, Jimenez went to BOA and acquired the subject property pursuant to a Deed of Trust.*fn3 Jimenez alleges that defendants never fully disclosed the terms of the mortgage loan and engaged in unfair and deceptive lending practices.*fn4 Defendants pushed teaser rates at Jimenez, while selling their loans to third parties and often earning increased profits for riskier loans.*fn5

On or about April 25, 2011, Recon served Jimenez with a Notice of Default and Election to sell under the Deed of Trust.*fn6 Jimenez asked Recon to comply with all relevant Federal Mortgage Assistance programs and California Mortgage Assistance programs, but a Notice of Sale was set for September 2, 2011.*fn7 Prior to the foreclosure sale, Jimenez alleges that she made improvements on subject property that exceed $50,000 in value.*fn8 The cover sheet of her complaint lists nine causes action for intentional fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, quiet title, cancellation of deed, "injunctive relief (2 counts)," cancellation of trustee's deed, declaratory relief, and recission.*fn9 The of the complaint, however, pleads only three causes of action for (1) cancellation of the trustee's upon sale, (2) cancellation of the trustee sale, and (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.*fn10

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard Governing Assertion of Federal Jurisdiction

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction in this case, plaintiff has the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001); Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). This burden, at the pleading stage, can be met by alleging sufficient facts to show that there is a proper basis for jurisdiction. FED.R.CIV.PROC. 8(a)(1) (a complaint "shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends"); see McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) ("The prerequisites to the exercise of jurisdiction are specifically defined and the plain import of the statute is that the District Court is vested with authority to inquire at any time ...


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.