Jose Cano v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Manuel L. Real: Defendant has therefore failed to meet its burden of proving the jurisdictional amount. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 15 is GRANTED. Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. PC056653. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

JOSE CANO, an individual,

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
vs.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC., and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

) CASE NO. CV 15-8721-R
)
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION TO REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, which was filed on January 19, 2016.
(Dkt. No. 15). Having been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under
submission on March 2, 2016.
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original
jurisdiction would have existed in the federal court at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.

2

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The strong presumption against removal

3

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.

4

Id. Accordingly, federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

5

removal in the first instance. Id.

6

For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must

7

exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A defendant seeking removal must “be held to a higher

8

burden than showing a mere possibility that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.” Sanchez v.

9

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

10

997 F.2d 150, 155-56 n.2 (6th Cir. 1993) (abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

11

559 U.S. 77 (2010))). In order to survive remand, the removing defendant must demonstrate that

12

the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. Coleman

13

v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2010). When the amount in

14

controversy is unclear from the face of the Complaint, “the defendant bears the burden of actually

15

proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at

16

566-67. “Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Matheson v.

17

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003).

18

Defendant claims that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied because Plaintiff seeks to

19

enjoin Defendant from foreclosing on his property, in which case the object of litigation is the

20

value of the property or the loan. Defendant’s argument is not without case law support. See e.g.

21

Hendricks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 1644028, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015);

22

Major v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 4103936, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014).

23

However, the weight of authority supports the view that, when a plaintiff is seeking a temporary

24

injunction pending the outcome of a loan modification review and is not seeking a rescission of

25

the mortgage loan, the amount in controversy cannot properly be gauged by the entire value of the

26

property or the loan. See e.g. Steele v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 4272276, at *3

27

(C.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2015) (“Plaintiffs do not seek to invalidate the mortgage loan or to permanently

28

enjoin Defendant from foreclosing. If they did, the value of the Property would be ‘in
2

1

controversy’. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendant from foreclosing until it complies with

2

HBOR and reaches a final decision on their loan modification application.”); Jauregui v.

3

Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 2015 WL 2154148, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) (“Courts have roundly

4

rejected the argument that the amount in controversy is the entire amount of the loan in cases

5

where the plaintiff seeks only to enjoin a foreclosure sale pending a loan modification

6

application.”); Vergara v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 1240421, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17,

7

2015) (same).
Here, although the Complaint makes references to damages in the form of the “value” of

8
9

the property at issue, Plaintiff does not appear to seek a permanent injunction nor a rescission of

10

the mortgage loan. Compl. ¶¶ 58 (“Defendant violated Civil Code § 2923.6(e) by refusing to

11

postpone the foreclosure sale set to occur on October 1, 2015, pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s

12

appeal for a loan modification.”); 70 (“Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant proceeding

13

with any foreclosure activity until Defendant has corrected and remedied its material violations of

14

Civil Code § 2924.17.”). Defendant has therefore failed to meet its burden of proving the

15

jurisdictional amount, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand must be GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. (Dkt. No.

16
17

15).

18

Dated: March 9, 2016.

19
20
21
22

___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3