Corrie Bowman v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al

Filing 8

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number BC644218. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-508 PA (KSx)

Title

Corrie Bowman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 24, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association (“Wells Fargo”). In its Notice of Removal, Wells Fargo asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the action brought against it by plaintiff Corrie Bowman (“Plaintiff”) based on the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Wells Fargo must prove that there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a
citizen of the United States and be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd.,
704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to
remain or to which they intend to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not
necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a national bank is “a
citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.”
Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307, 126 S. Ct. 941, 945, 163 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2006)
(construing 28 U.S.C. § 1348).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV 17-508 PA (KSx)

Date

Title

January 24, 2017

Corrie Bowman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

In support of its allegations that the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, the Notice of Removal
alleges:
Plaintiff alleges, and Wells Fargo is informed and believes, that Plaintiff
is, and at all times since the commencement of this action has been, a
citizen and resident of the State of California. To establish citizenship for
diversity purposes, a natural person must be both (a) a citizen of the
United States and (b) a domiciliary of one particular state. Kantor v.
Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). Residence
is prima facie evidence of domicile. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v.
Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994). Wells Fargo is informed and
believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff was domiciled in
California while he worked for Wells Fargo in California. Plaintiff
therefore is, or was at the institution of this civil action, a citizen of
California.
(Notice of Removal ¶ 6.) The Notice of Removal additional cites the second paragraph of the
Complaint in support of its allegations concerning Plaintiff’s citizenship. (Id. at n.1.) The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff “was and is a resident of the County of Orange, State of California.” (Compl. ¶ 2.)
As the Notice of Removal indicates, the Complaint alleges only Plaintiff’s residence. Because the only
support for Wells Fargo’s allegation of Plaintiff’s citizenship is an allegation of residence, and residence
is not the same as citizenship, the Notice of Removal’s allegations, made on information and belief, are
insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857; Bradford v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, 217 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D.
Cal. 1963) (“A petition [for removal] alleging diversity of citizenship upon information and belief is
insufficient.”). As a result, Wells Fargo’s allegations are insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Wells Fargo has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. BC644218. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2