Michael Jones v. Home Mortgage Direct Lenders

MEMORANDUM

Michael and Analisa Jones (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Appellants first contend that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action. We review de novo the district court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction. Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009). The first cause of action in Appellants’ complaint asserted violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (f)(2), giving the district court original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Appellants’ third and fourth causes of action, which asserted violations of a Nevada statute that incorporates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., necessarily turn on the construction of federal law and were thus also subject to the district court’s federal question jurisdiction. See Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 , 106 S.Ct. 3229 , 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). The district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining…