Cisse v. 17161 Alva Road Owners Association

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 18, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02163
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAMADY B. CISSE, Case No.: 19cv2163-GPC(MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 13 v. CASE TO STATE COURT 14 17161 ALVA ROAD OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit mutual 15 benefit corporation, COMMUNITY 16 LEGAL ADVISORS, INC., a California corporation, AUDREY C. SMITH, an 17 individual; and DOES 1 through 100, 18 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 The case was filed in the San Diego Superior Court on November 28, 2018 with an 22 amended complaint filed on October 8, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-2 Compl.) On November 23 12, 2019, Defendant Community Legal Advisors, Inc., filed a notice of removal alleging 24 that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 25 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. No. 1.) 26 27 28 1 The state court first amended complaint alleges causes of action to quiet title to 2 real property, wrongful foreclosure and violation of U.S. bankruptcy automatic stay, 11 3 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10.) In its notice of removal, Defendant relies on 4 Williams v. PFK Funding Servs., Inc., Case NO. C18-48 RSM, 2018 WL 3328398, at * 3 5 (W.D. Wash. 2018) to support the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. However, in 6 Williams, the Court did not specifically hold that it had jurisdiction over violations of the 7 bankruptcy automatic stay but its ruling was influenced by other non-bankruptcy related 8 claims that were subject to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 9 In fact, many district courts have held that a claim for violation of a bankruptcy 10 automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not provide a district court with subject matter 11 jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising 12 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 13 However, “[a] Federal District Court does not have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy 14 matters.” Park v. Nat’l City Bank of Indiana, Case No. CV 14-1354 SJO(PJWx), 2014 15 WL 12564360, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (quoting Radke v. Holbrook, No. CV 09- 16 01355 GAF, 2010 WL 9010982, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2010) (citations omitted)). 17 Instead, the district court has jurisdiction over an appeal of a final judgment or order of 18 the bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3). A claim for violation of the 19 automatic stay “must be brought in the bankruptcy court, rather than in the district court, 20 which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy case.” Eastern Equipment and 21 Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, Bennington, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2001); 22 see e.g., MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1996) 23 (claim arising from bankruptcy proceeding must be “brought in the bankruptcy court 24 itself, and not as a separate action in the district court”); see also Radke, 2010 WL 25 9010982, at *7 (“Plaintiff's allegations concerning the violation of the automatic stay in a 26 bankruptcy proceeding must be raised in the Bankruptcy Court. . . A Federal District 27 Court does not have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.”); Guancione v. 28 Wachovia Mortg. Corp., No. 5:10–CV–3166 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 2991728, at *3 (N.D. 1 || Cal. July 28, 2010) (“to the extent that Plaintiff could establish a violation of the 2 ||automatic stay, their remedy lies within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court’); 3 Zimmerman v. Bellows, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1034 (D. Minn. 2013) (“Count V alleges 4 ||that Defendants violated the automatic stay, for which Zimmerman seeks relief under 11 5 U.S.C. § 362(k). Though no party has raised the issue, the Court determines that it lacks 6 || jurisdiction to consider this claim.”); Heghmann v. Town of Rye, 326 F. Supp. 2d 227, 7 || 232—33 (D.N.H. 2004) (“Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 8 || over plaintiff's claims arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for willful violation of the 9 || automatic stay because all such claims must be brought in the bankruptcy court. The 10 || weight of the authority supports the defendants' argument.”). 11 Accordingly, because the claim for violation of U.S. bankruptcy automatic stay, 11 12 ||U.S.C. § 362(a) does not support this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte 13 ||, REMANDS the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 |}Dated: November 18, 2019 <=

17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28