Turner Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 9410·340 F.3d 858·2003 WL 21976471·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7493·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17043
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 200302-55848California2,176 words

Opinion

Opinion

Singleton, J.

Ameriquest Mortgage Company (“Am-eriquest”) appeals the district court’s order awarding attorney fees to Turner Ansley, following the court’s order remanding Ans-ley’s action to Orange County Superior Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Ansley’s state court complaint alleged that Ameri-quest charged him a mortgage prepayment penalty in an amount exceeding that permitted by California Civil Code § 2954.9 and California Business & Professions Code § 10242.6. Ameriquest removed the action to federal court, arguing that 'the federal Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3805 (“Parity Act”), completely preempts California law and gives jurisdiction to the federal courts. The district court remanded the action, reasoning that the Parity Act must completely preempt all California laws relating to alternative mortgage transactions in order to create federal jurisdiction, and finding that it failed to do so. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2001, Turner Ansley filed a complaint in Orange County Superi- or Court. The complaint alleged that Am-eriquest violated the California Consumer Legal…

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.