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.

Bernadette Alabanza v. Express Capital Lending et al

April 9, 2012

BERNADETTE ALABANZA
v.
EXPRESS CAPITAL LENDING ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Gary Allen Feess

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS

Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, STRIKING ALLEGATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND ELECTIVE FRANCHISE JURISDICTION

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2012, Plaintiff Bernadette Alabanza filed this suit against Defendants Express Capital Lending ("Express"), Commonwealth Land Title ("CLT"), Commonwealth Land Title Company ("CLT Co."), One West Bank, FSB ("One West"), Aurora Loan Services LLC ("Aurora"), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman Bros."), Structured Asset Securities Corporation ("SAS"), U.S. Bank, N.A. ("US Bank"), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank"), Lasalle Bank N.A. ("Lasalle"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), Lehman XS Trust ("Lehman Trust"), Quality Loan Services ("QLS"), Roger Stotts, Michael Arce, Erica A. Johnson, Franebra Harris, Erica A. Johnson-Seck, and Filishia M. Swain, seeking monetary damages, declaratory relief, and restitution in connection with the allegedly unlawful foreclosure of her home in Los Angeles. (Docket No. 1 [Compl.].) Plaintiff asserts one federal claim under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization's Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. and various claims under California law.

Plaintiff invokes this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction); under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights and elective franchise jurisdiction). (Id. ¶ 1.) Although the Court is satisfied that federal question jurisdiction is present in this case, it cannot presently conclude that jurisdiction exists on the basis of diversity of citizenship, as set forth below. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why her allegations of diversity jurisdiction should not be stricken. The Court concludes that civil rights and elective franchise jurisdiction is not present in this case; accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff's reference to jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 in ¶ 1 of the Complaint.

II. DISCUSSION

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . ." Snell v. Cleveland, , 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, ...


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.