Barstow v. JPMorgan Chase

Filing 10

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 07/11/18 REMANDING CASE to San Joaquin County Superior Court. Defendant's 3 Motion to Dismiss and 4 Motion to Strike are DENIED as moot. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GREGORY BARSTOW, an
individual and borrower,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
et. al.

16

No.

2:18-cv-00840-JAM-KJN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
SPS’MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION
TO STRIKE;
SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING
ACTION

Defendants.

17
18

On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Gregory Barstow (“Barstow” or

19

“Plaintiff”) brought the following claims against Defendants JP

20

Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPM”) and Select Portfolio, Servicing,

21

Inc. (“SPS” or “Defendant”) in the Superior Court of California

22

for the County of San Joaquin (“Superior Court”) based on

23

Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff’s mortgage loan modification

24

application: (1) violation of California Business and Professions

25

Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the covenant of good

26

faith and fair dealing under oral agreement; (3) negligence; and

27

(4) actual fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 1572(3)(5).

28

No. 1-1.

Plaintiff seeks $57,200 in damages.
1

Compl., ECF

Id., ¶¶ 38, 73,

1

76, 100, 121, 133, 167, 171.

2

On April 6, 2018, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal

3

with this Court.

4

thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

5

complaint and a motion to strike portions of the complaint.

6

Nos. 3-4.

7

matter jurisdiction.

8

reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to San Joaquin

9

County Superior Court and denies Defendant’s pending motions as

10

Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.

Shortly

ECF

Plaintiff opposed and argued the Court lacks subject
Opp., ECF No. 7, at 1-2.

For the following

moot.

11
12
13

I.

OPINION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action

14

to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction.

15

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)

16

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 961 (9th

17

Cir. 2003)).

18

“original jurisdiction” over matters based on diversity of

19

citizenship.

20

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

21

case shall be remanded.

22

seeking removal of an action to federal court has the burden of

23

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case.

24

Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).

25

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides district courts with

If at any time before final judgment it appears

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

A defendant

Cal. ex rel.

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over

26

civil actions.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,

27

377 (1994).

28

and may be raised by the Court sua sponte.

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived

2

See Attorneys Trust

1

v. Videotape Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir.

2

1996); Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.

3

2002).

4

The removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of

5

remand and against removal.

Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co.,

6

425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005).

7

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

8

first instance.

9

1992).

Federal jurisdiction must be

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

10

Defendant removed this action based on diversity of

11

citizenship and the amount in controversy meeting the $75,000

12

threshold.

13

because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the amount in

14

controversy is the full value of the mortgage loan—$359,000.

15

Defendant cites Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 651 F.3d

16

1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) to support this argument. Id.

17

Chapman, the Ninth Circuit found the plaintiff’s quiet title

18

action satisfied the amount in controversy requirement because

19

the object of the litigation was the property, which was assessed

20

at a value of more than $200,000.

21

the plaintiffs in Chapman, unlike Plaintiff here, sought a quiet

22

title judgment determining that they were the owners of the

23

disputed and foreclosed property.

24

Reply, ECF No. 8, at 1-2.

Defendant argues that

Id.

In

651, F.3d at 1045, n.2.

But

651 F.3d at 1041.

In Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770,

25

775-76 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit clarified its holding

26

from Chapman: “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks to quiet title to a

27

property or permanently enjoin foreclosure, the object of the

28

litigation is the ownership of the property” and “the value of
3

1

the property or the amount of indebtedness on the property is a

2

proper measure of the amount in controversy.”

3

further held that, in cases where the plaintiff seeks a temporary

4

injunction pending review of a loan modification application,

5

“the amount in controversy does not equal the value of the

6

property or amount of indebtedness.” Id. at 776.

7

because, even if the plaintiff succeeds in her or his lawsuit,

8

they would not be able to retain possession and ownership of the

9

subject property without paying off their debt.

10

The Ninth Circuit

This is

Id.

Here, Plaintiff does not seek a permanent injunction and

11

only seeks monetary damages of $57,200.

See Compl., ¶¶ 38, 73,

12

76, 100, 121, 133, 167, 171.

13

paragraph of the complaint that he seeks “injunctive relief”,

14

Plaintiff does not ask for a permanent injunction anywhere in the

15

complaint, including the Prayer for Relief.

16

is not applicable here and the Court finds that the amount in

17

controversy requirement has not been met, i.e. the amount in

18

controversy is determined by Plaintiff’s request for $57,200 in

19

damages. This Court lacks diversity jurisdiction and therefore

20

remands this case to the San Joaquin County Superior Court.

21

Corral, 878 F.3d at 775-776; see also Lenau v. Bank of America,

22

N.A., 131 F.Supp.3d 1003, 1005-06 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (remanding

23

action to state court because the amount in controversy was not

24

the entire amount of the loan since the plaintiff sought

25

injunctive relief to enjoin a foreclosure sale pending a decision

26

on the loan modification application).

27

///

28

///

While Plaintiff states in the first

4

See Compl. Chapman

See

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court remands this case
to the Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to
strike portions of the complaint are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2018

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5