O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 VICTOR CHEY et al., Case № 2:24-cv-09175-ODW (KSx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

13 v. DISMISS IN PART; DENYING AS

MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE; AND

14 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., REMANDING CASE [17] [19]

15 Defendants.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiffs Victor Chey and Timothy Chey, proceeding pro per, initiated this 19 action in state court against Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (“Chase Bank”), 20 J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, David Kim, and Luxie Chey.1 (Notice Removal 21 (“NOR”) Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants move to dismiss the 22 Complaint for failure to state a claim and to strike the Complaint pursuant to 23 California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. (Mot. Dismiss 24 (“MTD”), ECF No. 17; Mot. Strike (“MTS”), ECF No. 19.) For the following 25 reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, DENIES AS 26 MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and REMANDS this action to state court.2 27 1 Luxie Chey was erroneously sued as “Lacie” Chey. (See NOR, ECF No. 1.) 28 2 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motions, the Court deemed the matters appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 II. BACKGROUND3 2 Plaintiffs Victor Chey and Timothy Chey initiated this action in state court, 3 bringing thirty-one causes of action against Defendants Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan 4 Securities, LLC, David Kim, and Luxie Chey based on allegations that Chase Bank 5 withheld their elderly father, George Chey’s funds. (Compl.) Four causes of action 6 sound in federal law, and the remaining twenty-seven arise under state law. (Id. 7 ¶¶ 92–612) 8 Defendants removed this action to federal court based on federal question 9 subject matter jurisdiction. (NOR ¶ 1.) Specifically, Defendants assert that the Court 10 has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the four federal causes of 11 action: eighth cause of action for violation of the Investment Advisor Act, eighteenth 12 cause of action for mail fraud, nineteenth cause of action for violation of the Lanham 13 Act, and twenty-seventh cause of action for violations under the Racketeer Influenced 14 and Corrupt Organizations Act. (Id.) Defendants assert that the Court has 15 supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law 16 causes of action. (Id. ¶ 2.) 17 Plaintiffs subsequently moved to remand, arguing “this case lacks diversity 18 jurisdiction.” (Mot. Remand 12, ECF No. 15.) The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to 19 remand on the grounds that Defendants properly removed the action based on federal 20 question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a jurisdictional 21 basis which Plaintiffs did not challenge, and because Plaintiffs failed to comply with 22 the Local Rules. (Order Den. Mot. Remand 2, ECF No. 33.) 23 On December 2, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss and 24 Motion to Strike. (MTD; MTS.) The Motions are fully briefed. (See Opp’n MTD, 25 ECF No. 31; Reply ISO MTD, ECF No. 34; Opp’n MTS, ECF No. 32; Reply ISO 26 MTS, ECF No. 35.) 27 3 All factual references derive from the Complaint or attached exhibits, unless otherwise noted, and 28 well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true for purposes of this Motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 1 III. MOTION TO DISMISS 2 Defendants move to dismiss each of Plaintiffs’ thirty-one causes of action for 3 failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). 4 (See MTD 1–2.) The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law 5 before considering the state law causes of action. 6 A. Legal Standard 7 A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable 8 legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal 9 theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To 10 survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the “minimal notice 11 pleading requirements” of Rule 8(a)(2)—a short and plain statement of the claim. 12 Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual “allegations must be 13 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 14 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (holding that a claim must 15 be “plausible on its face” to avoid dismissal). 16 B. Federal Causes of Action 17 Defendants move to dismiss each of the four federal causes of action on various 18 grounds. (MTD 5, 9–13, 17.) Plaintiffs do not respond to Defendants’ moving 19 arguments as to the federal causes of action. (See generally Opp’n MTD.) Plaintiffs’ 20 failure constitutes a concession on those causes of action. Virgin Scent, Inc. v. BT 21 Supplies W., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 3d 1118, 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (deeming failure to 22 respond to moving argument as concession of the issue). Rather than oppose 23 dismissal of the federal causes of action, Plaintiffs concede that they “will dismiss all 24 Federal actions for Causes 8, 18, 19, and 27.” (Opp’n MTD 31.) As Plaintiffs 25 implicitly and explicitly concede the failure of these four claims, the Court 26 DISMISSES the eighth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-seventh causes of action 27 with prejudice. 28 1||C. State Causes of Action 2 When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 3 || jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 4|| the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Hunt v. City of Los 5 | Angeles, No. 21-55310, 2022 WL 3714490, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (“Where a 6 || district court dismisses a federal claim, leaving only state claims for resolution, it 7 || should decline jurisdiction over the state claims... .” (quoting Wade v. Reg’l Credit 8 | Ass’n, 87 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 1996))). Having dismissed all federal causes of 9 || action, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 10 || over the remaining state law claims and remand those claims to the Superior Court. 1] IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ 13 | Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 17), and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ 14 || causes of action eight, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-seven. As no federal claims 15 || survive and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 16 || remaining state law causes of action, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior 17 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 111.N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, 18 || California, 90012, Case No. 24STCV24607. 19 Consequently, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Strike, 20 || without prejudice to Defendants refiling it with the Superior Court. (ECF No. 19.) 21 || The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 May 7, 2025 bellyig 26 27 / 28 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE