Tenita Bell v. Bayview Loan Servicing et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court finds that First Tennessee Bank failed to establish either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The Court thus REMANDS this case to Los Angeles Co unty Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, South Central District, Case number TC 027104 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (lc). Modified on 4/9/2013 .(lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6

cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court, South Central District,
Compton, No. TC 027104

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TENITA BELL,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-2238-ODW(MRWx)
Plaintiff,

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC et
al.,

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants.

15
16

On March 28, 2013, Defendant First Tennessee Bank National Association filed

17

a Notice of Removal. But after considering the papers filed with the Notice, the Court

18

determines that First Tennessee Bank has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing

19

either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore REMANDS this

20

action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

21

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, only having subject-matter

22

jurisdiction over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const.

23

art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

24

(1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court

25

would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal

26

courts have original jurisdiction over actions presenting a federal question under 28

27

U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But courts strictly

28

construe § 1441 against a finding of removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction

1

must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”

2

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The removing party bears the

3

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445

4

F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).

5

A.

Federal-question jurisdiction

6

In determining whether federal-question jurisdiction exists, a court follows the

7

“well-pleaded complaint rule,” that is, a federal question must exist on the face of the

8

plaintiff’s complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The

9

plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may avoid removal by relying exclusively

10

on state law. Id.

11

First Tennessee Bank argues that Bell’s Complaint arises under federal law

12

because Bell “accuses First Tennessee of violating ‘truth in lending’ laws.” (Not. of

13

Removal ¶ 15.) First Tennessee Bank points to paragraph 27 of Bell’s Complaint,

14

which is under Bell’s first cause of action for declaratory relief. Bell alleges that the

15

“specific controversy is the lender’s violation of truth in lending laws.” (Compl.

16

¶ 27.)

17

But nowhere in Bell’s Complaint does she actually allege a violation of the

18

federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1667f. Bell does not mention the

19

Act’s formal name or its statutory citation. Instead, all eleven of her causes of action

20

sound in state rather than federal law. And to the extent that federal law could be

21

relevant to Bell’s first cause of action for declaratory relief, the United States Supreme

22

Court has held that arising-under jurisdiction does not exist when a federal question is

23

presented by a complaint for a state declaratory judgment. Franchise Tax Bd. v.

24

Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 19 (1983).

25

B.

Diversity jurisdiction

26

To exercise diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must find complete diversity

27

of citizenship among the adverse parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed

28

$75,000, usually exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

2

1

First Tennessee Bank alleges that it is a citizen of Tennessee because it “is a

2

national banking association with its main office in the state of Tennessee.” (Not. of

3

Removal ¶ 6.) But a national banking association is deemed to be a citizen of both the

4

state in which it has designated its main office and the state where it has its principal

5

place of business. Am. Sur. Co. V. Bank of California, 133 F.2d 160, 162 (9th Cir.

6

1943); Uriarte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127497 (S.D. Cal.

7

2011). The Court acknowledges, but finds unpersuasive, other courts’ interpretation

8

of Schmidt to mean that a national banking association is a citizen only of the state of

9

its main office. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, 653 F.3d 702,

10

710 (8th Cir. 2011). First Tennessee Bank failed to state that it does not have its

11

principal place of business in California.

12

And as for Defendants Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and Lake Havasu Assets,

13

LLC, First Tennessee Bank alleges that they are not California citizens, because they

14

both have their principal places of business outside the state. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) But

15

limited-liability companies are deemed citizens of each state of which their members

16

are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

17

2006). First Tennessee does not allege the citizenship of each of these companies’

18

members and thus has not established that they are completely diverse from Bell.

19

Accordingly, the Court finds that First Tennessee Bank failed to establish either

20

federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The Court thus REMANDS this case to Los

21

Angeles County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

April 8, 2013

24
25
26

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

3