John B. Mutean et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number VC066293. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-4688 PA (ASx)

Title

John B. Mutean, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 27, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery

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, N.A.
(“Defendant”). In its Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the
action brought against it by plaintiffs John B. Mutean and Cornelia Mutean (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
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, Defendant 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.

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 17-4688 PA (ASx)

Date

Title

June 27, 2017

John B. Mutean, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

In support of its allegations that the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, the Notice of Removal
alleges:
Plaintiffs are California citizens based on domicile, as they plead residency
and ownership of a home located at located [sic] at 14903 Rayfield Drive,
La Mirada, California – the subject property in this action (the ‘property’
or ‘subject property’) (Compl. ¶¶ 5–6, 8; see also Compl. Exh. A [Deed of
Trust].) Plaintiffs also plead residency in Los Angeles County. (Compl.
¶ 1.)
(Notice of Removal, 2.) The Notice of Removal further argues that the Complaint alleges claims that
only apply to owner-occupied dwellings that are the borrower’s primary residence. (Id.) As the Notice
of Removal indicates, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that “[a]t all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs were
individuals residing in the County of Los Angeles, in the State of California,” and that Plaintiffs
purchased the subject property in 1994. (Id., Exh. A, ¶¶ 1, 4.) Therefore, the Complaint alleges
Plaintiffs’ residence only. Because a person’s residence – even his primary residence – is not the same
as his domicile, the Notice of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to establish Plaintiffs’ citizenship.
Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus
is not necessarily a citizen of that state.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Case No. VC066293. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2