Jacobsen v. Aurora Loan Services, LLV et al
Filing
45
ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/23/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
MICHAEL T. O’BRIEN, et al.,
No. C 12-0135 RS
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER RE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
Defendants removed this action from Contra Costa County Superior Court, asserting
18
diversity of citizenship. There is no dispute, however, that defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance
19
Corporation is a citizen of California, and that therefore removal jurisdiction would be lacking
20
unless it was fraudulently joined or its presence in this litigation otherwise can be disregarded. Even
21
in the absence of a motion to remand, the Court has an obligation to ensure that subject matter
22
jurisdiction exists prior to reaching any issue going to the merits. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
23
372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).
24
Assertions like those made by Aurora here as to why Cal-Western does not defeat diversity
25
have been rejected in other similar cases. See, e.g. Albert v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2012 WL
26
1213718 (N.D.Cal., April 11, 2012); Garnett v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 2012 WL 1440920
27
(C.D.Cal., April 25, 2012). The party asserting the fraudulent joinder bears the burden of proof, and
28
remand must be granted unless the defendant can show that there is no possibility that the plaintiff
1
could prevail on any cause of action it brought against the non-diverse defendant. See Levine v.
2
Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co., 41 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1078 (C.D.Cal.1999). “The strong
3
presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
4
establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (internal
5
quotations omitted). “Courts should resolve doubts as to removability in favor of remanding the case
6
to state court.” Id.
7
In light of this issue, the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss and cross-motions for
8
summary judgment is vacated. No later than June 1, 2012, defendants shall file a supplemental
9
brief, not to exceed 15 pages, addressing the question of whether this action should be remanded to
state court for lack of removal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may file a response, also not to exceed 15
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
pages, no later than June 8, 2012. The matter will then be taken under submission. In the event the
12
case is not remanded, the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment will then either be reset for
13
hearing or decided without oral argument, as may appear appropriate at that juncture.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
Dated: 5/23/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
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?