Holly Arlena Vaughan v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Holly Arlena Vaughan’s motion to remand an action removed from state court. The court held that the complaint’s Truth in Lending Act claim established federal-question jurisdiction and that the related state-law claims fell within supplemental jurisdiction. The court also rejected the asserted procedural defects in removal and deemed the motion to strike moot.

Holdings

1. The court had federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff's complaint alleged a claim under the Truth in Lending Act.
2. The court had supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims because they formed part of the same case or controversy as the TILA claim.
3. The state-law claims did not predominate, and their presence did not defeat the court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
4. The removal was not procedurally defective for lack of separate consent by Flagstar because a timely notice of removal containing an attorney's averment of the other defendants' consent can satisfy the consent requirement, and Nationstar satisfied that requirement in the notice of removal.
5. The alleged state-court default did not require remand because the notice of removal was filed before the asserted default, and removal divested the state court of jurisdiction at that point.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had federal-question jurisdiction based on Plaintiff's Truth in Lending Act claim.
2. Whether the court had supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's related state-law claims.
3. Whether the state-law claims predominated such that remand was required or supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised.
4. Whether the removal was procedurally defective because of alleged lack of consent by Flagstar, removal after default, or untimely consent by Nationstar.
5. Whether Plaintiff's ex parte application for remand was procedurally improper.
6. Whether Nationstar was entitled to sanctions based on a request first raised in its opposition.

Disposition

other