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)

Download PDF
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?