Hamid Khorrami et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
13
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDERING APPEARANCE TO SHOW CAUSE RE JURISDICTION by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. The Court ORDERS Wells Fargo to appear at 9:00 a.m. on August 29, 2016, to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The other parties may also appear if they wish. (see document for details). (dro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 16-1344 AG (DFMx)
Title
HAMID AND NEDA KHORRAMI v. WELLS FARGO BANK ET AL.
Present: The
Honorable
August 16, 2016
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
Date
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
[IN CHAMBERS] ORDERING APPEARANCE TO SHOW
CAUSE RE JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs Hamid and Neda Khorrami sued Defendants Wells Fargo, NBS Deafault Services,
LLC (“NBS”), Glenwood Trust #27350 (“Glenwood”), and PDQ Investment, LLC
(“PDQ”) in state court for various claims arising out of a home loan.
Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, asserting that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction on diversity grounds. Diversity jurisdiction requires that (1) each plaintiff be a
citizen of a different state than each defendant and (2) the amount in controversy exceed
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Wells Fargo states that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied because the loan
amount and value of the property clearly exceed $75,000 and Plaintiffs seek actual damages
exceeding $800,000. Wells Fargo also states that there is complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties: Wells Fargo is a South Dakota citizen, NBS is a Texas citizen, and
Plaintiffs are California citizens. However, Wells Fargo admits that Defendants Glenwood
and PDQ are both California citizens but claims they should be ignored in a diversity
jurisdiction analysis because they were fraudulently joined parties. Wells Fargo supports this
claim by asserting that Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege any wrongful conduct by and
seeks no relief from either Glenwood or PDQ.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 16-1344 AG (DFMx)
Date
August 16, 2016
Title
HAMID AND NEDA KHORRAMI v. WELLS FARGO BANK ET AL.
Federal courts must guard their limited jurisdiction jealously. Ghazaryan v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. , 42 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1342 (C.D. Cal. 2014). The Court is concerned about whether it
has jurisdiction. More specifically, Wells Fargo’s fraudulent joinder argument is not
convincing to the Court.
A defendant trying to get into federal court will often argue that a party the plaintiff brought
into the lawsuit was only included to prevent potential or destroy existing diversity in a case
where diversity jurisdiction might otherwise exist. For a defendant to succeed on this
fraudulent joinder argument, the defendant must convince the court that after resolving “all
disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law . . . in the plaintiff’s
favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned.”
Padilla v. AT&T Corp., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2009). The failure to state a
claim against the non-diverse defendant must be “obvious according to the well-settled rules
of the state.” United Computer Sys. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 2002). If a
defendant is persuasive, the court is supposed to ignore the citizenship of the fraudulently
joined sham defendant when deciding whether there’s the requisite diversity of citizenship.
See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996); Padilla, 697 F. Supp. 2d at 1158.
The Court ORDERS Wells Fargo to appear at 9:00 a.m. on August 29, 2016, to show cause
why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The other
parties may also appear if they wish.
:
Initials of
Preparer
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
lmb
0
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?