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
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?