Bronson, et al v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/9/2011 ORDERING that since the removant has failed to show diversity of citizenship removal jurisdiction, this case is REMANDED to the California Superior Court in the County of Nevada as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

PETER C. BRONSON, an individual,
and CAROLYN P. BRONSON, an
individual,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION, a California
corporation; EMC MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; EMC MORTGAGE REAL
ESTATE SERVICES INC., a Delaware
corporation; JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., a New York
corporation, a/k/a CHASE HOME
FINANCE, LLC; MARIN CONVEYANCING
CORPORATION, a California
corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; MERSCORP,
INC., a Delaware corporation;
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
INC., a New York corporation;
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; STRUCTURED
ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II
INC., a Delaware corporation,
aka STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS II INC, GREENPOINT
MTA TRUST 2005-AR-5; WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a
United States bank, in its own
capacity and also as Trustee for
STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS II INC., GREENPOINT
MTA TRUST 2005-AR-5; and DOES 1
through 600, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

2:11-cv-03242-GEB-GGH
ORDER

1

Plaintiffs ex parte motion to remand this case to the state

2

court from which it was removed has prompted the Court to sua sponte

3

consider whether subject matter removal jurisdiction exists. This case

4

was removed from the California Superior Court in the County of Nevada

5

based on diversity removal jurisdiction, which has not been shown to

6

exist.

7

“The removal statute is strictly construed against removal

8

jurisdiction [and] [t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing that

9

removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,

10

582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “Where doubt

11

regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to

12

state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089,

13

1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Diversity jurisdiction “requires that the parties

14

be in complete diversity[.]” Id. at 1090; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

15

Since the removant has failed to show diversity of citizenship

16

removal jurisdiction, this case is remanded to the California Superior

17

Court in the County of Nevada as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for

18

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

19

Dated:

December 9, 2011

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2