Charles W. Bartlett et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Christina A. Snyder. On August 30, 2013, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court. Defendantcontends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship. Dkt. #1. On September 19, 20 13, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order as to a foreclosure sale scheduled for September 26, 2013. Dkt. #7. First, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction overplaintiffs' c laims on the basis of diversity. "Section 1332 of Title 28 confers jurisdictionon federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants.Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the partieseach defendantmust be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff." Absent further guidance from the Ninth Circuit, theCourt is disinclined to revisit this conclusion here. Therefore, because the Court findsthat Wells Fargo's principal p lace of business is in California and plaintiffs are Californiacitizens, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.Moreover, because plaintiff's complaint asserts only state law claims, it does notappear tha t the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this case on the basis of a federalquestion. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court'ssubject matter jurisdiction, which would make removal of this action imprope r. Due tothis lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court declines to consider plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order. In accordance with the foregoing, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by no later than September 23, 2013, why this case should not be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Refer to document for details of the Court's order. (pso)

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

CV 13-6397 CAS (JEMx)

Title

CHARLES W. BARTLETT, ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 19, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Monica Salcido
Deputy Clerk

N/A
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 REGARDING
NOTICE OF REMOVAL

INTRODUCTION

On July 19, 2013, plaintiffs Charles and Sandra Bartlett initiated the instant action
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
NDEX West, LLC, and Does 1-100. Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) violation of
California Civil Code § 2923.6; (2) violations of California Business and Professions
Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) negligence; and (4) an accounting.
On August 30, 2013, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court. Defendant
contends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. Dkt.
#1. On September 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order as to a foreclosure sale scheduled for September 26, 2013. Dkt. #7.
II.

ANALYSIS

First, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of diversity. “Section 1332 of Title 28 confers jurisdiction
on federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants.
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant
must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp.
Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). As this
Court has found before, a national bank is a citizen of both the state where it has its main
office, as designated by its articles of association, and the state where it has its principal
place of business. See Ochoco v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 12-6196, (C.D. Cal.
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 13-6397 CAS (JEMx)

Date

September 19, 2013

Title

CHARLES W. BARTLETT, ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Aug. 16, 2012) (citing Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, No. EDCV 11-0928, 2012 WL
174206, at *14 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). Absent further guidance from the Ninth Circuit, the
Court is disinclined to revisit this conclusion here. Therefore, because the Court finds
that Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is in California and plaintiffs are California
citizens, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Moreover, because plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state law claims, it does not
appear that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this case on the basis of a federal
question. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction, which would make removal of this action improper. Due to
this lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court declines to consider plaintiff’s motion
for a temporary restraining order. See Cornhusker Cas. Co. v. O'Neill Plumbing Co., 143
F. App'x 762, 763 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that because “there is no diversity among the
parties, and we lack subject matter jurisdiction,” the court “cannot consider the merits of
the claim”).
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW
CAUSE by no later than September 23, 2013, why this case should not be remanded to
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

MS

Page 2 of 2