Vincent Robbins et al v. ACF Partners et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: It does not appear that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before 3/22/2012, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

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

CV 12-1247 CAS (AGRx)

Title

VINCENT ROBBINS, ET AL. v. ACF PARTNERS, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 2, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2011, plaintiffs Vincent and Virginia Robbins and the Robbins
Family Trust filed the instant action against ACF Partners, Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., RSM&A Foreclosure
Services, Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. (“Cal-Western”), One-West Bank, JP
Morgan Chase Bank, and Does 1–10. The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that
defendants have initiated foreclosure on plaintiffs’ home without authority to do so
because assignment of and substitution of trustees under the deed of trust were invalid.
See generally Compl. Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) quiet title;
(3) declaratory and injunctive relief, motion for stay of the unlawful detainer under the
Fourteenth Amendment; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) lack of
standing; (6) slander of title; (7) improper securitization of loan; and (8) unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs allege subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship.
For the reasons set forth below, it does not appear that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction and plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why the action should not be
dismissed.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 12-1247 CAS (AGRx)

Title

VINCENT ROBBINS, ET AL. v. ACF PARTNERS, ET AL.

II.

Date

March 2, 2012

DISCUSSION

In order to satisfy diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed
$75,000 and the controversy must be between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Complete diversity is required, meaning that “the citizenship of each plaintiff
is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S.
61, 68 (1996). For the purposes of diversity, a corporation is a citizen of the state in
which it has its principle place of business, namely the place where “a corporation’s
officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010). “A federal court has the power to bring a motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of its own accord at anytime where
jurisdiction is not available to the litigants.” Cook v. City of Pomona, 884 F. Supp. 1457,
1461 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
In this case, complete diversity between the parties does not appear to exist.
Plaintiffs, who are California citizens, allege that Cal-Western is a citizen of Georgia.
However, a review of the California Secretary of State website indicates that Cal-Western
is a California Corporation located at 525 East Main Street, El Cajon, California, 92020.
Because plaintiffs and Cal-Western appear to be California citizens, complete diversity,
and therefore subject matter jurisdiction, does not exist.
III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or
before March 22, 2012, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2