H James Tapia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 14 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

H. JAMES TAPIA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a North
Carolina financial
institution; NDEX WEST, LLC,
a Minnesota limited
liability; REGIONAL TRUSTEE
SERVICES CORPORATION, a
California financial
institution,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-03922 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND
[Dkt. No. 14]

19
20
21

Defendants.
___________________________
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff H. James Tapia’s

22

motion to remand.

23

parties and their respective arguments, the Court DENIES

24

Plaintiff’s motion.

25

After reviewing the materials submitted by the

Plaintiff H. James Tapia brought this action against

26

Defendants regarding a mortgage loan allegedly owned and serviced

27

by Defendants.

28

severe financial hardship around 2009 and requested a loan

(Compl. ¶ 25-32.)

Plaintiff alleges he suffered

modification from Wachhovia and Wells Fargo.

(Id. at ¶ 30.)

1

Plaintiff alleges that Wachovia and Wells Fargo made offers to

2

modify the loan but did not follow through on these offers and

3

attempted to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home.

4

101.)

5

estoppel and violate several sections of the California Civil Code,

6

the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the California

7

Business & Professions Code.

Plaintiff alleges these actions constitute promissory

(Id. at p. 5-28.)

Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court on April 22,

8
9

(Id. at 31-32, 99-

2015.

Defendant filed a timely notice of removal on May 22, 2015

10

based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

11

filed a motion to remand the case to state court on June 15, 2015.

12

Plaintiff alleges that there is not complete diversity between the

13

parties because both Plaintiff and Defendant Regional Trustee

14

Services Corporation (“RTSC”) are citizens of California.

15

for Remand p. 5.)

16

is complete diversity because (1) RTSC is a non-existent entity,

17

(2) RTSC was a Washington corporation, and (3) even if RTSC was a

18

California corporation, it was fraudulently joined by Plaintiff to

19

defeat diversity.

20

Plaintiff

(Motion

Defendants Wells Fargo and Wachovia allege there

(Opp’n to MFR p. 1-3.)

A defendant may remove a case from state court to federal

21

court if the case could have originally been filed in federal

22

court.

23

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy

24

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of

25

different States.

26

presumption” against removal and the Defendant has the burden of

27

establishing that removal is proper by a preponderance of evidence.

28

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Morrison v.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

The district courts have original

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

2

There is a “strong

1

Zangpo, No. C-08-1945 EMC, 2008 WL 2948696, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July

2

28, 2008).

3

Defendant has met its burden of showing that removal is proper

4

because the parties are diverse.

Defendants provide evidence that

5

RTSC was never registered as a corporation in the state of

6

California.

7

plan of merger document indicating that RTSC was a Washington

8

Corporation (Id., Ex. H) and is now registered as “Old RTSC Corp.,”

9

an inactive Washington Corporation (Id., Ex. I.)

(Shulman Decl., Ex. G.)

Defendants also provide a

Plaintiff had the

10

opportunity to file a reply to dispute this evidence but it failed

11

to do so.

12

research indicated that RTSC was a California corporation, but

13

there is no documentary evidence to support this statement.

14

Decl., ¶ 9.)

15

Court points toward RTSC being a Washington corporation, complete

16

diversity between the parties exists and the Court need not address

17

the issue of fraudulent joinder.

18
19

Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a statement that his

(Huang

Because substantially all the evidence before the

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is
DENIED.

20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22

Dated:

August 4, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3