Denise Holloway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 14

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 10 12 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand 12 and GRANTS Defendants motion to dismiss 10 . The May 25, 2018 hearing on the motions is VACATED. Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading, or notify Defendants of her intent not to do so, within 15 days from the date of this Order. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in the summary dismissal of this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti)

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

Date

CV 18-773-DMG (SHKx)

May 14, 2018

Title Denise Holloway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable

Page

1 of 4

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [10, 12]

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (“MTD”) Plaintiff’s
Complaint, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (“MTR”). [Doc. ## 10 (MTD), 12 (MTR).]
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants—Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), the loan
servicer of Plaintiff’s home loan; and U.S. Bank, NA (“USB”), the beneficiary of the Deed of
Trust recorded in connection with Plaintiff’s home loan and property—in Riverside County
Superior Court on March 15, 2018. [Doc. # 1-1 (Complaint).] The Complaint alleges various
state law causes of action related to the servicing of Plaintiff’s home loan. Id. She seeks, inter
alia, a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from foreclosing on Plaintiff’s property. Id.
at 20 ¶ 2.
On April 16, 2018, Defendants timely removed the action to this Court for diversity
jurisdiction. [Doc. # 1.] Their Notice of Removal establishes, contrary to the Complaint’s
allegations, that neither defendant is a citizen of California for diversity purposes. Id. at 3–4.
They also contend that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because the subject
property—the object of the litigation in this foreclosure-related case—was used to secure a
$540,000 loan. Id. at 4.
On April 23, 2018, Defendants filed the instant MTD. [Doc. # 10.] The following day,
Plaintiff filed the instant MTR, arguing that Defendants have not shown an amount in
controversy over $75,000 by virtue of the loan amount. MTR at 6–7.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

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

Date

CV 18-773-DMG (SHKx)

Title Denise Holloway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

May 14, 2018
Page

2 of 4

II.
DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Remand
1.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), a district court shall have jurisdiction over a civil
action where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and there is
complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. See Diaz v. Davis (In re Digimarc Corp.
Derivative Litig.), 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). Only the amount of controversy is in
dispute here.
“The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking
removal.” Marin v. Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir.
2009). The removing defendant must prove the requisite amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002); see
also Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he defendant
must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in
controversy exceeds [$75,000].” (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398,
404 (9th Cir. 1996))).
2.

Analysis

Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot rely on either the value of her home or the
amount of indebtedness to establish the requisite amount in controversy for removal. In support,
she relies on the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878
F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2017). In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s reliance on Corral is
misplaced and that they have sufficiently carried their burden in demonstrating an amount in
controversy over $75,000. Defendants are correct.
“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount
in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State
Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 33, 347 (1977); accord Cohn, 281 F.3d at 840. Where the
plaintiff seeks “injunctive relief to prevent or undo the lender’s sale of the property,” “the value
of the property is the object of the litigation for the purposes of determining whether the amountin-controversy requirement has been met.” Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C-10-01667JCS, 2010 WL 2629785, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2010); see also Chapman v. Deutsche Bank
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

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

CV 18-773-DMG (SHKx)

Title Denise Holloway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

Date

May 14, 2018
Page

3 of 4

Nat’l Tr. Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1045 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Here, the object in litigation is the
Property, which was assessed at a value of more than $200,000, and therefore satisfies the
amount-in-controversy requirement.”); Garfinkle v. Wells Fargo Bank, 483 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th
Cir. 1973) (treating value of property as amount in controversy in action to enjoin foreclosure
sale).
In Corral, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the lower court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to
remand in a case where the plaintiff sought “only a temporary injunction against foreclosure
while a loan modification application [was] pending” and not “to enjoin foreclosure
indefinitely.” 878 F.3d at 774–75, 776. The Court held that “the amount in controversy in such
cases does not equal the value of the property or amount of indebtedness.” Id. at 776. Notably,
however, the Court distinguished the circumstances at bar from those presented in cases where
the Circuit Court found that the property value satisfies the amount in controversy requirement:
Our holding here is not inconsistent with Chapman and Garfinkle [cited above].
When a plaintiff seeks to quiet title to a property or permanently enjoin
foreclosure, the object of the litigation is the ownership of the property.
Therefore, the value of the property or the amount of indebtedness on the property
is a proper measure of the amount in controversy.
Id.
As stated above, Plaintiff seeks, in no uncertain terms, to permanently enjoin the
foreclosure sale of her property. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff used the property to
secure a $540,000 loan. Defendants contend it is thus more likely than not that the value of the
property exceeds $75,000. The Court agrees. Defendants have carried their burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s MTR is therefore DENIED.
B.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants’ MTD is noticed for a May 25, 2018 hearing. [Doc. # 10.] Pursuant to Local
Rule 7-9, Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Friday, May 4, 2018, i.e., at least 21 days before the
date of the motion hearing. To date, no opposition has been filed, and the time to do so has now
passed. Accordingly, Defendants’ MTD is GRANTED for failure to oppose. See Oakley, Inc.
v. Nike, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (“[T]he Local Rules permit the Court
[to] deem failure to oppose as consent to the granting of the motion.”) (citing L.R. 7-12).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

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

Date

CV 18-773-DMG (SHKx)

Title Denise Holloway v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.

May 14, 2018
Page

4 of 4

III.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Doc. # 12] and
GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. # 10]. The May 25, 2018 hearing on the
motions is VACATED. Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading, or notify Defendants of her
intent not to do so, within 15 days from the date of this Order. Failure to timely file an
amended complaint will result in the summary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv