Mohanna v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-04530
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Mohanna v. Deutsche Bank, Judge Corley ordered briefing on federal jurisdiction, vacated the dismissal hearing, and held the motion while jurisdiction was considered.
Keyhan Mohanna and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; the order requires both parties to address federal subject-matter jurisdiction and pauses Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Mohanna v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Keyhan Mohanna, who was representing himself, sued over an alleged wrongful foreclosure and related state and federal claims. The court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case.
The court ordered both sides to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over the claim involving the bankruptcy automatic stay. It also asked how the remaining state-law claims could stay in federal court if that federal claim could not be heard there. The court vacated the scheduled hearing on Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss and paused that motion.
Judge Corley did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Mohanna’s claims in this order. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered the parties to submit explanations of no more than 10 pages addressing jurisdiction and the citizenship of all parties.
The detailed version
- Mohanna v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · No. 3:21-cv-04530
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 21, 2021
Background
Keyhan Mohanna, proceeding without counsel, alleged that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company wrongfully foreclosed on property at 1405 Greenwich Street, Unit #6, San Francisco, California 94109. He asserted claims for wrongful foreclosure, violations of California Commercial Code § 3302 and related provisions, and violation of the bankruptcy automatic-stay provision, 11 U.S.C. § 362. The opinion also notes that Mohanna listed provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his filing.
Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Before deciding that motion, the court raised its own concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute.
Jurisdictional concerns
The court explained that federal jurisdiction can be based on a federal question or on diversity of citizenship. Mohanna appeared to rely on federal-question jurisdiction because he alleged a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), which concerns the automatic stay during bankruptcy proceedings.
The court cited authorities stating that a claim for violating the bankruptcy automatic stay must be brought in the bankruptcy court rather than originally in a district court. The court therefore ordered the parties to explain how the district court had jurisdiction over the § 362 claim.
The court also ordered the parties to explain how it could hear the remaining claims for wrongful foreclosure and violations of the California Commercial Code if it lacked jurisdiction over the § 362 claim. The court stated that there did not appear to be a basis for diversity jurisdiction because, according to the amended complaint, Mohanna and Deutsche Bank were both citizens of California.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause—meaning to provide a legal explanation—as to why the court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The parties were directed to submit statements of no more than 10 pages explaining any jurisdictional basis and specifically addressing the citizenship of all parties.
The court vacated the September 30, 2021 hearing on Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss and held that motion in abeyance, meaning it paused consideration of the motion pending resolution of the jurisdiction issue. The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Mohanna’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.