McGuiness, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 10 Joint Stipulation Requesting the Remand of the Federal Action to the State Court, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/20/15. Case Remanded to Stanislaus County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

RICHARD MCGUINESS, an individual,
and MELODY MCGUINESS,
Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, a business
entity and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00390- AWI-GSA
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
STIPULATION REQUESTING THE
REMAND OF THE FEDERAL ACTION
TO THE STATE COURT
(Doc. 10)

Defendants

12
13
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A.,
14

f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (“Defendants”) removed this case

15
from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County on March 11, 2015. See Doc. 1. Defendants
16
asserted that the basis for removal was the presence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
17
18

1332. See id. On April 10, 2015, Richard McGuiness and Melody McGuiness (“Plaintiffs”) filed
a Motion for Remand to Superior Court and Request for Payment of Attorney‟s Fees by Defense

19
Counsel in the Amount of $2,500.00. See Doc. 8. On April 17, Defendants filed a joint
20
stipulation requesting the remand of the federal action to the state court. See Doc. 10.
21
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
22
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.,
23

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v.

24
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden
25
of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
26
27
28

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising
under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.

1

Caterpiller, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists

2

only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff‟s properly pleaded complaint.”

3

Id. at 392. If the complaint does not specify whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a

4

claim “arising under” federal law only if it is “clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v.

5

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, plaintiff is generally the “master of the

6

claim.” Caterpiller, 482 U.S. at 392. There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because

7

there is a federal defense to the claim. Id. at 392. The only exception to this rule is where the

8

plaintiff‟s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a

9

federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc.,

10
11

813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
The complaint here contains state law claims for unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. &

12

Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), negligence, and violations of the Rosenthal Act (Cal. Civ. Code

13

§ 1788). No federal claim is alleged. As such, this court does not have jurisdiction over this

14

matter on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. This court will now consider whether it has

15

diversity jurisdiction over the matter.

16

Subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires all plaintiffs to have a

17

different citizenship from all defendants and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See

18

28 U.S.C. § 1332; Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). In

19

attempting to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, defendants must prove that there is complete

20

diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

21

28 U.S.C. § 1332. When an action has been removed and the amount in controversy is in doubt,

22

there is a “strong presumption” that the plaintiff has not claimed an amount sufficient to confer

23

jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing St. Paul Mercury

24

Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-90 (1938). “When not facially evident from the

25

complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a

26

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.”

27

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). “Conclusory

28

allegations must provide evidence establishing that it is „more likely than not‟ that the amount in
2

1

controversy exceeds [$75,000].” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th

2

Cir. 1996). Indeed, “when a state-court complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in

3

controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the „party seeking removal must prove with

4

legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.‟” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.,

5

506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007).

6

Plaintiffs originally filed this litigation in Stanislaus County Superior Court by filing their

7

complaint in Limited Civil Jurisdiction, which limits damages recoverable to $24,999.00. In their

8

motion to remand, Plaintiffs state that they “are seeking an order requiring Defendants to act

9

appropriately under California State law and to uphold their duty of care required once they accept

10

a loan modification application.” See Complaint, 5:4-6. Further, “[u]nder no circumstances have

11

Plaintiffs sought to „invalidate a loan secured by a deed of trust‟ . . . Nor have Plaintiffs sough[t]

12

to cancel a deed of trust or enjoin the bank from selling or transferring the property.” See id. at

13

5:1-4. Accordingly, the jurisdictional amount has not been met in this case. See also Alex v. JP

14

Morgan Chase & Co., 2:14-cv-01402-CAS-VBK; Doherty v. Ocwen Financial Corp., 2:14-cv-

15

7118-PA-E.

16
17
18

After consideration of the Stipulation of Plaintiffs and Defendants and good cause
appearing the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

19

The parties‟ Stipulation to remand the instant action back to the State Court is
GRANTED;

20

2.

All pending hearing dates for this matter are VACATED;

21

3.

The case will be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of

22
23

Stanislaus, Case No. 2012731, forthwith; and
4.

The request for payment of attorney‟s fees is DENIED.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3