NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

Good Law
653 F. Supp. 2d 1013·2008 WL 6808988·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111889
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2008SACV 07-0794 AG(ANX)California955 words

Opinion

Opinion

Guilford, J.

Proceedings: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FREMONT INVESTMENT AND LOAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1)

Before the Court is Defendant Fremont Investment • & Loan’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”). After considering all arguments presented by the parties, the Court DENIES the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Defendant, among others, for violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act. (Complaint ¶¶ 7-8.) Defendant filed the Motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (citations omitted)).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.