Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivan Rivers et al

Filing 12

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER remanding case to Orange County Superior Court, Harbor Justice Center, Case number 30-02014-00700730. Mailed certified copy of minute order, docket sheet and CV103. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2014: # 1 CV 103) (twdb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-01409-CJC(JPRx)

Date: November 17, 2014

Title: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. IVAN RIVERS, ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR
IMPROPER REMOVAL
On September 3, 2014, Defendants Ivan Rivers, Caroline Walker, Joshua Gordon,
Sarah Burns, and Aura McClain (collectively, “Defendants”) removed this unlawful
detainer action originally filed in the Orange County Superior Court by Plaintiff Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) to this Court for the third time this year. (Dkt. No. 1
[“Notice of Removal”]; see also Dkt. No. 8, Decl. of Gina L. Albertson ISO Pl.’s Resp.
to the Ct.’s Order to Show Cause Exhs. C, D; Dkt. No. 1 [“Compl.”][bringing a limited
jurisdiction action where amount demanded does not exceed $10,000].).
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court
if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1)
involve questions arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve
an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The
defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the
district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right
of removal in the first instance.”). Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-01409-CJC(JPRx)

Date: November 17, 2014
Page 2

raised by the Court sua sponte at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”).
Defendants here assert two bases for federal jurisdiction. First, Defendants assert,
without sufficient explanation, that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this
matter because it arises out of federal laws regarding civil rights, fraud, debt collections
practices, and maritime disputes. (See Notice of Removal); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal question jurisdiction is determined under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,”
under which “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). Thus, “[t]he rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she
may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Here, Defendants
have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction. This case
appears to be a straightforward action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. (See
Compl.) The federal statutes Defendants cite to in their notice of removal do not appear
on the face of the Complaint and instead, appear to be Defendants’ possible defenses to
the Complaint.
Second, Defendants argue that the Court has diversity jurisdiction and merely
assert that the amount-in-controversy is $1,500,000. Defendants cannot assert diversity
jurisdiction in such manner because the Complaint clearly seeks damages no greater than
$10,000. (See Compl.). The amount in controversy requirement is therefore not
satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Furthermore, the Court cannot ascertain diversity as
Defendants incorrectly assume that Wells Fargo is domiciled in California, see Rouse v.
Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, 747 F.3d 707, 715 (9th Cir. 2014), and further fail to state
where Defendants themselves are domiciled, (see Notice of Removal).
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-01409-CJC(JPRx)

Date: November 17, 2014
Page 3

Because there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this action, removal is
improper. The Court, on its own motion, thus REMANDS this action to Orange County
Superior Court. The Court further warns Defendants that any further attempt to remove
this action is improper and will result in the Court issuing an order to show cause why
Defendants should not be sanctioned and designated as vexatious litigants.

em
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU