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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?