Ilan Avnieli et al v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER INSTRUCTING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING ANDDENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 11 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court ORDERS Defendants to submit supplemental briefing,not to exceed three pages, by Friday, July 17, 2015, alleging the citizenship of First American Title or establishing why First American Titles citizenship should not be considered for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction under federal law. Failure to timely and adequately respond will result in remand of the present action. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Pending the result of the supplemental briefing, Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss Plaintiffs FAC. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

United States District Court
Central District of California
ILAN AVNIELI, an individual, and
HEATHER AVNIELI, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS,
INC., a corporation; THE BANK OF
NEW YORK MELLONF/K/A THE
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE
CWALT, INC, ALTERNATIVE LOAN
TRUST 2004·20T1, MORTGAGE
PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2004-20T1, an unknown business
entity; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation;
and DOES 1through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02877-ODW-PJW
ORDER INSTRUCTING
DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT
SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING AND
DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS [11]

23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

JURISDICTION

On April 17, 2015, Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. and The Bank of New
York Mellon (“Defendants”) removed this action to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) On
June 3, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) in response to
which Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 24, 2015 (ECF No.

1

13). Upon review of the Motion and the pleadings, the Court reexamined jurisdiction

2

and now questions whether it has federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

3

There are two ways a party can bring a case within the jurisdiction of federal

4

courts: (1) federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity of citizenship

5

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions

6

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and

7

the case is between citizens of different states. Id. “If at any time before final

8

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

9

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10

12(h)(3) (providing that a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction,

11

sua sponte, at any time).

12

However, there is an exception to the diversity analysis for a nominal party.

13

The Ninth Circuit has held that courts should “ignore the citizenship of nominal or

14

formal parties who have no interest in the action, and are merely joined to perform the

15

ministerial act of conveying the title if adjudged to the complainant.” Prudential Real

16

Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding

17

that managing shareholders were essentially constructive trustees with no stake in the

18

outcome of the litigation). The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating that

19

a defendant is a nominal party. Silva v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CV 11–3200–GAF

20

(JCGx), 2011 WL 2437514, *3 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2011). Thus, in this case, that

21

burden is on Defendants. (ECF No. 1.)

22

Defendants did not allege First American Title’s (“FAT”) citizenship in the

23

Notice of Removal (“NOR”) or FAT’s federal nominal defendant status. (ECF No.

24

1.) Defendants relied solely on FAT having filed a Declaration of Nonmonetary

25

Status (“DNMS”) in accordance with California Civil Code section 2924l in order to

26

claim that FAT is a nominal party. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins held that federal courts

27

with diversity jurisdiction are bound by state substantive law and follow federal

28

procedural law. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965).

2

1

California Civil Code section 2924l is a state procedural device designed to

2

eliminate the need for a nominal party to participate in an action as it sets the

3

procedure for filing and serving, the time for objections, and result of a party’s failure

4

to timely object. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l. California procedure requires no actual

5

showing that the filing party is nominal and only declares that the party has a

6

“reasonable belief” that it “has been named in the action or proceeding solely in its

7

capacity as trustee, and not arising out of any wrongful acts or omissions on its part in

8

the performance of its duties as trustee.” Segura v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. CV–14–

9

04195–MWF (AJWx), 2014 WL 4798890, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014), quoting Cal.

10

Civ. Code § 2924l(a). Because it is well established that federal courts apply federal

11

procedure (see Erie R.R. Co., 304 U.S. 64 (1938)), this Court is not bound by the

12

mechanism of a DNMS. See Segura, 2014 WL 4798890, at *3.

13

Defendants cite two California district court cases to support their conclusion

14

that FAT is a nominal party pursuant to state procedure. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants did

15

not show that FAT is a nominal party pursuant to federal procedure, nor did they show

16

that the district court cases cited correctly interpreted the nominal party exception to

17

diversity jurisdiction. This is insufficient and creates doubt that the case was properly

18

removed to federal court.1 In addition, the Complaint and FAC state claims directly

19

against FAT pertaining to its acts or omissions. Thus, this Court requires information

20

at to FAT’s citizenship or nominal status.

21

Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendants to submit supplemental briefing,

22

not to exceed three pages, by Friday, July 17, 2015, alleging the citizenship of First

23

American Title or establishing why First American Title’s citizenship should not be

24

considered for the purpose of determining diversity jurisdiction under federal law.

25

Failure to timely and adequately respond will result in remand of the present action.

26
1

27
28

If there is any doubt regarding the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve
those doubts in favor of remanding the action to state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
in the first instance.”).
3

II.

1

MOTION TO DISMISS

2

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) the Complaint on June 3, 2015.

3

(ECF No. 11.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a FAC on June 24, 2015 in lieu of an

4

opposition to the MTD. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants are not required to file a new

5

MTD simply because an amended complaint was introduced while their MTD was

6

pending. Section 1476 Effect of an Amended Pleading, 6 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.

7

§ 1476 (3d ed.). However, Plaintiffs’ FAC seems to directly address the arguments

8

asserted in Defendants’ MTD. (See generally ECF No. 13.) Therefore, the Court

9

DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Pending the

10

result of the supplemental briefing, Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss

11

Plaintiffs’ FAC.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

July 7, 2015

15
16
17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4