Gonzales v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

Veronica Ann Gonzales brought claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank N.A.; Quality Loan Service Corporation; Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.; and Juliet Bernal. The claims arose from a prior foreclosure and included negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, cancellation of instruments and declaratory relief, wrongful foreclosure, conversion, and quiet title.

The court considered motions to dismiss filed by Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank, along with Gonzales’s motion to remand. Gonzales did not file an opposition to the motions to dismiss, even after being warned that failing to respond would be treated as non-opposition. The court also granted the defendants’ requests for judicial notice of public documents and documents from other court proceedings.

Motion to Remand

The court denied Gonzales’s motion to remand. Under the court’s analysis, a remand motion generally had to be filed within 30 days after removal. The case was removed on August 7, 2020, making September 7, 2020 the deadline identified by the court. Gonzales filed her motion on September 18, 2020, so the court denied it as untimely.

The court also rejected the motion on its substance. It concluded that federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, noted that Gonzales was a California citizen, and found that she did not show the defendants lacked sufficient diversity or that the amount-in-controversy requirement was unmet. The court rejected Gonzales’s arguments that she was a citizen of the “People of the California Republic,” that she did not reside in federal territory, and that California was a sovereign apart from the United States. The court also noted that Gonzales did not challenge the defendants’ contention that Quality Loan Service Corporation, described as a California citizen and the substituted trustee, had been fraudulently joined.

Motions to Dismiss

The court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. It first held that dismissal was appropriate because Gonzales failed to oppose the motions after receiving an explicit warning about the consequences. The court then considered the substance of the motions.

The defendants argued that the claims were barred by claim preclusion, were filed too late, and failed to state a claim. The court found that Gonzales had brought several identical prior lawsuits in 2014 and 2016 involving the same operative facts, the same issues, and the same parties or parties in a legally recognized relationship with those parties. It concluded that the requirements for claim preclusion were satisfied because the earlier proceedings ended with prejudice, involved the same cause of action, and involved the same parties or parties in privity. The court stated that dismissal with prejudice barred Gonzales from litigating those issues again.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. It dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. The order terminated Docket Numbers 7, 11, and 18. The opinion does not separately describe a disposition for each nonmoving defendant.