Noelia Mendoza Sanchez v. Daniel Matthew Talman et al

Filing 49

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge John W. Holcomb. ( Response to Order to Show Cause due no later 12 noon on 5/20/2022.) Video hearing on this Order to Show Cause set for 6/3/2022 at 11:00 AM before Judge John W. Holcomb. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb)

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

5:21-cv-00966-JWK (KKx)

Date May 9, 2022

Title Noelia Mendoza Sanchez v. Daniel Matthew Talman, et al.
Present: The Honorable

JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION (IN CHAMBERS)
Plaintiff Noelia Mendoza Sanchez filed her Complaint in San Bernardino
County Superior Court in March 2021.1 Three months later, Defendants Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Company (jointly, “Wells Fargo”) removed
this action to this Court.2 In its Notice of Removal, Wells Fargo asserted that
Mendoza Sanchez’s Complaint “presents a federal question and the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over any state law related claims.”3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441
(providing procedures for the removal of civil actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(establishing federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (governing
supplemental jurisdiction). Wells Fargo’s jurisdictional statement was correct
because in her Complaint, Mendoza Sanchez sought relief under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.4

1

See Notice of Removal, Ex. A (the “Complaint”) [ECF No. 1-1].

2

See Notice of Removal (the “Notice”) [ECF No. 1].

3

Id. at 2:10-11.

4

Id. at ¶ 5; see also Complaint ¶¶ 44-48.
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—
GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

Mendoza Sanchez filed her operative Amended Complaint in February
2022. In that pleading, Mendoza Sanchez no longer asserts a claim for relief
arising under federal law.6 Accordingly, it appears that the Court no longer has
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
5

District courts also “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Here, Mendoza Sanchez alleges that she is a California resident and that so too are
Defendants Daniel Matthew Talman, Bankers Hill Capital Inc., and Wells Fargo &
Company.7 Based upon those allegations, therefore, it appears that the Court also
lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.
The parties are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action
should not be remanded to San Bernardino County Superior Court for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are DIRECTED to respond to this
Order to Show Cause in writing no later than 12:00 noon on May 20, 2022. Failure
to respond may result in the Court sua sponte remanding this action to state court.
2.
A video hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for June 3, 2022,
at 11:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

See Am. Compl. (the “Amended Complaint”) [ECF No. 36].

6

Id.

7

Id. at ¶¶ 1-4.
Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—
GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv