Salvador Perez v. Chase Home Finance LLC et al

Filing 77

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC455580 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. Certified Copies of docket sheet and order to remand sent to state court (see document for details). (rne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-02575-RGK (JEMx)

Title

SALVADOR PEREZ v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC

Present: The
Honorable

Date

December 7, 2011

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

On February 22, 2011, Salvador Perez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a class action against Chase Home
Finance, LLC (“Defendants). In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts state claims relating to late fees assessed
by Defendant on timely payments made on consumer home loans.
On March 28, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court alleging federal diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Upon review of Defendant’s Notice of
Removal and supporting documents, the Court hereby remands the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), district courts shall have original jurisdiction over any civil
action in which (1) any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant; and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. After a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant attempting to remove the case
to federal court bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy requirement has been met.
Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007). If the complaint does
not allege the amount in controversy, the removing defendant must supply this jurisdictional fact in the
Notice of Removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege the amount in controversy. In its Notice of Removal,
Defendant attempts to supply the requisite jurisdictional facts by introducing evidence regarding the
total amount of late fees collected from borrowers within the pertinent time frames. However, Plaintiff’s
allegations specifically identify Defendant’s unlawful acts as:
[I]nstead of applying payments made within 10 days of a scheduled installment to
that scheduled installment, [Defendant applies] such payments to earlier past due
installments, for which the borrower has already been assessed a late fee, and then
also assess[es] yet another late fee for the scheduled installment that was just paid,
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-02575-RGK (JEMx)

Date

Title

December 7, 2011

SALVADOR PEREZ v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC

thereby generating improper and excessive late charges.
(Compl. at ¶ 3.) Therefore, the evidence is insufficient, as Defendant fails to identify the dollar amount
specifically attributable to the practice of which Plaintiff complains. Rather, the evidence reflects a
range of fee assessments that likely extend beyond the amount of late fees collected on payments that
were made within 10 days prior to the date an installment was due. Therefore, the Court finds that
Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof as to amount in controversy.
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby remands the action to state court for all further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2