Dare v. U.S. Bank National Association CA4/1

Filed 6/25/25 Dare v. U.S. Bank National Association CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAVID DARE, D083758

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- 00017020-CU-BC-NC) U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Earl H. Maas III, Judge. Affirmed. Michael David Dare, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, Edward A. Treder and Alexander J. Lauvray for Defendants and Respondents. Michael David Dare appeals the dismissal of the underlying state court action for lack of jurisdiction following its removal to bankruptcy court. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm.

I. Seeking to avoid a foreclosure sale of his home, Dare sued Respondents U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-12N; Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP “as Trustee/Debt Collector”; Nationstar Mortgage LLC “not in its own Individual capacity but ONLY as Attorney in Fact for Downey Savings and Loan Assoc[iation] and also as Attorney in fact for US Bank NA”; and Aegis Wholesale Corporation in state court. Dare asserted, among others, a claim for violation of a bankruptcy discharge injunction under title 11 United States Code section 524. Respondents removed the entire action to bankruptcy court under title 28 United States Code section 1452. In response, Dare requested to voluntarily dismiss the bankruptcy proceeding “in its entirety.” The bankruptcy court dismissed the proceeding per Dare’s request without expressly remanding any portion back to state court. Over a year later, in response to Respondents’ motion, the state court dismissed the state court action after finding “it has no jurisdiction over the claims raised by [Dare] in this action” given the removal to bankruptcy court. In its order, the state court noted Dare “at no time” moved the bankruptcy court “to remand his claims to state court.” II. A. Dare claims the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the action, so the state court retained jurisdiction and thus erred in dismissing his case. Respondents argue the state court “lost jurisdiction when the case was removed” and “never regained jurisdiction.” (Bolding omitted.) We agree with Respondents.