The Bank of New York Mellon v. Davidson et al
Filing
58
Findings and Recommendations recommending that this Action be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ; Order DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/7/2021. Matter referred to Judge Drozd. (Objections to F&R due by 5/24/2021) (Rosales, O.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 1:17-cv-01335-DAD-EPG
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE
REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECTMATTER JURISDICTION
BRENDA L. DAVIDSON, et al.,
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
17
(ECF No. 55)
18
Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing suit in
19
20
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare on August 7, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1
21
at 6). The United States, then a defendant, removed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and
22
1444 on October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Because the United States is no longer a party and there is
23
no other basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court recommends remanding this matter back to state
24
court. In addition, for the reasons that follow, the Court discharges its orders to Plaintiff to show
25
cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and why
26
Defendant SRI, Inc., should not be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to
27
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 55).
28
///
1
1
I.
2
BACKGROUND
This case concerns Defendant Brenda L. Davidson’s apparent failure to repay loans
3
backed by a mortgage and tax liens on the mortgaged property. On October 4, 2017, the United
4
States removed this case from the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare, under 28
5
U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444. (ECF No. 1). Defendant Davidson filed an answer on February 8,
6
2018. (ECF No. 12).
7
On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 23). On
8
April 2, 2019, Plaintiff and the United States filed a stipulation between themselves concerning
9
the priority of the United States’ lien. (ECF No. 26). On August 15, 2019, the Court granted the
10
stipulation and terminated the United States from this action. (ECF No. 38 at 16) (ordering that
11
“[t]he stipulation of Plaintiff and the United States (Doc. No. 26) is adopted and granted;” and
12
directing clerk of court “to terminate the United States from the docket in this action”).
13
On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which named Davidson,
14
the City of Porterville, and SRI, Inc. as defendants. (ECF No. 45). The United States was not
15
named as a party. The clerk issued a summons as to SRI, Inc. (ECF No. 46). On February 19,
16
2020, Plaintiff filed a certificate of service of the amended complaint on Defendants Davidson
17
and the City of Porterville. (ECF No. 48). Defendant SRI, Inc. was not timely served.
18
For over one year, there was no further activity on this case. On April 5, 2021, the Court
19
held a status conference. Counsel Ruby Chavez appeared for Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon;
20
Defendant Brenda L. Davidson appeared pro se; and counsel Jonathan Hauck appeared for the
21
United States. At the status conference, the Court inquired whether the Court retained jurisdiction
22
over this matter. Plaintiff indicated that remand to state court was likely proper. Defendant
23
Davidson stated she had no position. The United States wished to consider the issue further.
24
On April 5, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this
25
matter should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court
26
also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve
27
defendant SRI, Inc.
28
///
2
1
On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed proof of service on Defendant SRI, Inc. (ECF No. 56).
2
On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff
3
stated it had encountered difficulties serving Defendant SRI, Inc., which is a suspended
4
corporation. Plaintiff’s initial attempt to serve was on January 11, 2020. It failed because the
5
address for the registered agent could not be located. Plaintiff tried against on October 22, 2020 at
6
a different address listed for the corporation on the website for the California Secretary of State.
7
Defendant SRI, Inc. could not be located at that address. On March 31, 2021, Plaintiff attempted
8
to serve the registered agent at an address found using a skip trace search. Plaintiff’s process
9
server could not enter the building. Finally, on April 6, 2021, Plaintiff was able to locate
10
Defendant SRI, Inc.’s agent for service of process at his work address and accomplished service.
11
Plaintiff states it intends to seek a default judgment against Defendant SRI, Inc.
12
In addition, Plaintiff states that the Court no longer has subject-matter jurisdiction.
13
Accordingly, “Plaintiff requests that the District Court remand the matter to the Superior Court of
14
California, County of Tulare for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id. at 3).
15
II.
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
16
This action was initially removed to this Court by the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
17
§§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444. (ECF No. 1 at 1). However, the United States stipulated with Plaintiff as
18
to the status of its liens. (ECF No. 26). District Judge Drozd adopted the stipulation and
19
terminated the United states from this action. (ECF No. 38 at 16) (ordering that “[t]he stipulation
20
of Plaintiff and the United States (Doc. No. 26) is adopted and granted;” and directing clerk of
21
court “to terminate the United States from the docket in this action”). The First Amended
22
Complaint does not name the United States as a party, and it does not contain any statement
23
regarding the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 45).
24
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. … It is to be presumed that a cause lies
25
outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
26
asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
27
(internal citations omitted). The district court must remand a case “[i]f at any time before final
28
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
3
1
1447(c); see also Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2014); Bruns v. Nat’l Credit
2
Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that remand for lack of subject
3
matter jurisdiction “is mandatory, not discretionary”).
4
The original bases for jurisdiction—28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444—both depended
5
on the United States remaining a party to this action.1 However, the United States is no longer a
6
party. Thus, neither statute provides an independent avenue for jurisdiction. E.R. by & through
7
Young v. Sutter Davis Hosp., 2017 WL 1231949, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) (in action
8
removed under section 1442(a)(1), “[b]ecause the court dismissed the claims against the United
9
States, it no longer has original jurisdiction over this action,” but retaining jurisdiction under
10
supplemental jurisdiction); Franklin AAA Holdings, LLC v. L.A. Cnty. Tax Collector, 2011 WL
11
165401, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011) (“Because the United States is no longer a party to this
12
action, the Complaint does not present a valid federal question as it did initially under 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1444.”).
14
There appears to be no other jurisdictional basis. Plaintiff’s claims, which relate to unpaid
15
loans, arise under state law. (See ECF No. 45 at 6-11). Plaintiff also does not allege diversity: it
16
alleges that it is “a national banking association, organized and existing under the laws of the
17
United States of America,” that Defendant Davidson is a California resident, and that Defendant
18
SRI, Inc., is a California corporation. (ECF No. 45 at 2). Therefore, there appears to be no
19
federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
However, federal courts have “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
20
21
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
22
case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A
23
district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction … [if] the district court has
24
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Acri v.
25
Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (explaining that a district
26
court may decide sua sponte to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). The Supreme Court
27
1
28
Section 1442(a) permits the removal of a civil action “that is against or directed to … (1) The United States ….”
Similarly, section 1444 permits removal of “[a]ny action brought under section 2410 of this title against the United
States ….”
4
1
has stated that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
2
balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,
3
convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
4
remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).
5
Here, the remaining claims relate to state law. The United States was given the
6
opportunity to explain why the Court should retain jurisdiction but elected not to do so.
7
Therefore, the Court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and recommends
8
declining to do so.
9
III.
10
ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE
On April 5, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be
11
remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and why Defendant SRI, Inc.,
12
should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
13
Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 55 at 4).
14
Plaintiff filed its response on May 6, 2021. (ECF No. 57). First, Plaintiff states that there
15
is no jurisdictional basis and requests a remand to state court. It has thus complied with the
16
Court’s order.
17
18
Second, Plaintiff explains that it twice tried to serve Defendant SRI, Inc., before the Court
set a status conference. However, it encountered difficulties, as explained above.
19
Plaintiff’s two attempts in one year does not persuade the Court that it dilligently
20
attempted to serve Defendant SRI, Inc., particularly when it appears the information required to
21
accomplish service was available online. However, given that service was more difficult than
22
usual, that Defendant SRI, Inc., has been suspended by the Franchise Tax Board, that Plaintiff
23
does not seek damages against Defendant SRI, Inc., that Plaintiff accomplished service, and that
24
Plaintiff intends to seek a default judgment against Defendant SRI, Inc., the Court declines to
25
recommend dismissing Defendant SRI, Inc., on that basis.
26
Therefore, the Court discharges both orders to show cause.
27
///
28
///
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
IV.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the orders to show cause (ECF
No. 55) are DISCHARGED.
Additionally, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be remanded to the
Superior Court of California, County of Tulare for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
8
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file
9
written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
10
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
11
within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772
12
F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 7, 2021
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?