Gerardo Diaz Calderon v. Capital One, National Association et al

Filing 19

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 11 by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Accordingly, the hearing set for July 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., is VACATED. Having read and considered the parties briefs, the Court DENIES the Motion. See document for further information. (lwag)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: SACV 16-752-JLS (SSx)
Title: Gerardo Diaz Calderon v. Capital One, N.A. et al.

Date: July 6, 2016

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 11)
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gerardo Diaz Calderon’s Motion to Remand to
Orange County Superior Court. (Mot., Doc. 11.) Defendants Capital One, N.A. and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. opposed. (Opp., Doc. 18.) The Court
finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D.
Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for July 8, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., is VACATED.
Having read and considered the parties’ briefs, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

At issue in this action is property located at 21111 Wheaton Terrace, Lake Forest,
Orange County, CA. (Compl. ¶ 8, Doc. 1-1.) In May 2005, Plaintiff Gerardo Diaz
Calderon purchased the subject property and obtained a mortgage from Defendant Wells
Fargo Bank. (Id. ¶ 9.) The deed of trust identified a secured note amount of $320,000.
(Deed of Trust, Compl. Ex. A, Doc. 1-1.) Plaintiff believes the deed of trust was sold,
transferred, or eventually assumed by Defendant Capital One, N.A. through an electronic
transfer serviced by Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Compl.
¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that the mortgage loan transactions violated numerous provisions
of state and federal law. (Id. ¶ 12.) In February 2016, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: SACV 16-752-JLS (SSx)
Title: Gerardo Diaz Calderon v. Capital One, N.A. et al.

Date: July 6, 2016

indicated that $421,648.35 was owed on the subject property and, as a result, the property
may be sold at a public sale. (Notice of Trustee’s Sale at 1, Compl. Ex. E, Doc. 1-1.)
Plaintiff argues that because the deed and loan assignments were invalid, any resulting
foreclosure by the Defendants would constitute an illegal and wrongful foreclosure. (Id.
¶ 14.)
On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants that asserted
the following claims: (1) fraud, (2) cancellation of a voidable contract, (3) void or
cancellation of the assignment of deed of trust, (4) promissory estoppel, (5) violation of
the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, (6) quiet title, (7) discrimination in business
dealings, and (8) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Id. ¶¶ 45-94.) On April 20,
2016, Capital One removed the action to this Court. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.)
Capital One asserts that both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction
provide a basis for removal to federal court. (Id. at 1-6.)
Plaintiff now moves1 to remand this action to the Orange County Superior Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When reviewing a notice of removal, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies
outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the
contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d
676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the
removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 if the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties to the action are citizens of different states.
1

In his declaration, Plaintiff indicates that he met and conferred with Defendants’
Counsel in compliance with Local Rule 7-3. (Calderon Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Doc. 12.) Although
Plaintiff did not address this conference in his Notice of Motion as required under Local Rule 73, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently complied with this Local Rule.
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: SACV 16-752-JLS (SSx)
Title: Gerardo Diaz Calderon v. Capital One, N.A. et al.

Date: July 6, 2016

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 1332 “requires complete diversity of citizenship; each
of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Morris
v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).
III. DISCUSSION
Capital One contends that both diversity jurisdiction and federal question
jurisdiction provided a basis for removal to this Court. (Notice of Removal at 1-6.) As
for diversity jurisdiction, Capital One posits that complete diversity exists between the
parties: it asserts Plaintiff is a California citizen and Defendants are citizens of Virginia,
Delaware, and South Dakota.2 (Id. at 2-3.) Capital One also asserts that based on either
the value of the property, loan, or indebtedness at issue in this action, the amount in
controversy clearly exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 4-5.)
In his Motion, Plaintiff does not contest the amount in controversy. Rather,
Plaintiff’s only challenge to removal involves the Defendants’ alleged citizenship.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants are California citizens because Plaintiff “dealt primarily”
with their representatives here in California, Defendants “maintain offices and conduct
substantial dealings” in California, and Defendants “ha[ve] purposefully availed
themselves of the laws of the State of California.” (Mem. at 9.) However, as Plaintiff
noted in his Motion, a corporation’s “principal place of business . . . is best read as
referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the
corporation’s activities,” i.e., the corporation’s “headquarters” or “‘nerve center.’” (Id. at
8); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). The mere fact that Defendant does
2

Capital One asserts that it and Wells Fargo are national banking associations with
headquarters in Virginia and South Dakota, respectively. (Notice of Removal at 2-3); see 28
U.S.C. § 1348 (“All national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the States in
which they are respectively located.”); Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318
(2006) (a national bank is “located” under § 1348 “in the State designated in its articles of
association as its main office.”). Capital One asserts that MERS is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Virginia. (Notice of Removal at 3.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: SACV 16-752-JLS (SSx)
Title: Gerardo Diaz Calderon v. Capital One, N.A. et al.

Date: July 6, 2016

business in California is insufficient to construe California citizenship. See Wachovia
Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307, 318 (2006) (neither a corporation nor a
national banking association is “deemed a citizen of every State in which it conducts
business or is otherwise amenable to personal jurisdiction.”). Indeed, Plaintiff provides
“business entity details” from the California Secretary of State that confirm Capital One
and MERS have their principal places of business in Virginia, not California. (Calderon
Decl. Exs. A-B, Doc. 12.) Accordingly, this argument provides no basis for remand.
Having found it may exercise diversity jurisdiction over the instant action, the
Court need not address the issue of federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion to Remand.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Remand is DENIED.

Initials of Preparer: tg

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
4