1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Carlos Aguirre 38587 154th Street East Palmdale, California 93591 (661) 414-2866 Cell (661) 367-5252 Fax Attorney In Pro Se UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Carlos Aguirre Plaintiff, v.
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE LACK OF SUBJECT CASE NO: 2:11-cv-06259-ODW-JEM(x)

WORLD SAVINGS BANK; WELLS FARGO BANK; GOLDEN WEST MATTER JURISDICTION; SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND COMPANY; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION; AUTHORITIES AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SUCH PERSON, ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS TITLE THERETO; And DOES 1 to 10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Carlos Aguirre provides the following response to the courts Order to Show Cause re lack of subject matter jurisidiction over Plaintiffs claims.
1

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The undersigned Carlos Aguirre (hereinafter Plaintiff), a natural person

and not a collective entity, under penalty of perjury, whom within his knowledge, information and belief, respectfully submits this response to the courts Order to Show Cause herein as follows. 2. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Therefore, this Court must construe this claim liberally and hold it to a less stringent standard than the Court would apply to a pleading drafted by a lawyer. Please see: Platsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 953 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1991)---Deciding that: In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). JURISDICTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 3. Plaintiff invokes this Court's jurisdiction for his constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. 1983. This Court has plenary jurisdiction over the present dispute and all parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 in that the claims alleged therein arise under the laws of the United States, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982, 1983,and 1988(a). 4. Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. 1983 as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 09-CV-05794-WHA, 2010 WL 1463578, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2010) (citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The California Constitution (Art. I, 1) is self-executing and confers a right of action beyond the scope of the mere common law tort. See, e.g., Burt v. Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 273, 284.

Defendants Acted Under Color of Law 5. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant violated a right secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States; and (2) the defendant did so acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 6. Where As, here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were acting under color

of state law and violated Plaintiffs rights secured by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United Statesby foreclosing with no right and authority; and by filing defective and fraudulent documents in the Los Angeles County Recorders Office, engaging in felonious acts. "A person acts under color of state law only when exercising power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 (1981). 7. The conduct of banks in pursuit of non-judicial foreclosures must be done

under the authority of the federal charter which is the `law of the United States' and therefore `under color of federal law. Here, all Defendants were acting under federal law for all claims; including Wells Fargo Bank, NA. and Cal-Western Reconveyance. Furthermore, the `Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008' Title I established the Troubled Assets Relief Program which provided for the purchases of troubled assets. Financial institutions were designated as financial agents of the Federal Government and shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Federal Government as may be required." MOREOVER, TARP authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to
3

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"designate financial institutions as financial agents [including Wells Fargo Bank.NA.] of the Federal Government" and mandate such financial institutions to "perform all reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Federal, Government." 12 U.S.C. 5211. Furthermore, Plaintiff re-alleges that; the Secretary of the Treasury designated Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA. as a financial agent of the Federal Government. 8. P l a i n t i f f m o v e s t h i s c o u r t t o t a k e n o t i c e t h a t this Court has

original jurisdiction over the claims in the Second Amended complaint based on 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 2202, 12 U.S.C. 2605, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 which confer original jurisdiction on federal district courts in suits to address the deprivation of rights secured by federal law. 9. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law

claims because they form a part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 10. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based

on 28 U.S.C. 1332 which confers original jurisdiction on federal district courts in suits between diverse citizens that involve an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00. 11. The unlawful conduct, illegal practices, and acts complained of and

alleged in the Second Amended Complaint were all committed in the Southern District of California and involved real property that is located in the Southern District of California. Therefore, venue properly lies in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 12. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein, an individual
4

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

residing in the County of Los Angeles, in the State of California. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff has owned real property commonly known as 28403 Falcon Crest Drive, Canyon Country, California 91351. (the "Property"), further described as: Valued at $477,000.00
Assessor Parcel Number: 2812-070-015 Legal Lot: 57 Tract No: 46626 Abbreviated Description: LOT:57 CITY:REGION/CLUSTER: Description: 01/01146 TR#:46626 TR=46626 LOT 57 City/Muni/Twp: REGION/CLUSTER: 01/01146

13. Dakota. 14.

At all relevant times, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national association

organized under the laws of the United States with its main office in South At all relevant times, Wachovia Mortgage, a Division of Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A. and F/K/A Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, is a national association organized under the laws of United States with its main office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 15. The guarantee of rights granted to each Californian is a special and

unique right embedded in the very first clause of the California Constitution. Article I, 1 of the California Constitution provides:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Emphasis supplied)

16.

For the reasons mentioned above, this court has subject matter Respectfully submitted By: Carlos Aguirre______________UCC 1-308 Attorney In Pro Se

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. DATED: July 02, 2012

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE