The Bank of New York Mellon v. Soriano et al
Filing
18
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-12-1193 EMC
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND
MARCELINO SORIANO, et al.,
(Docket No. 13)
12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
15
Plaintiff the Bank of New York Mellon (the “Bank”) initiated this unlawful detainer action in
16
state court. Defendants Marcelino and Alegria Soriano subsequently removed the case to federal
17
court. Currently pending before this Court is the Bank’s motion to remand the case back to the state
18
court from which it was removed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having considered the
19
papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to remand.
20
21
I.
DISCUSSION
The Bank filed a motion to remand, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
22
agrees subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. In their notice of removal, the Sorianos asserted that
23
there is federal question jurisdiction because the Bank has violated their due process rights;
24
however, federal question jurisdiction depends on the contents of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
25
complaint and may not be predicated on the defendant’s counterclaims. See Holmes Group, Inc. v.
26
Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002).
27
Moreover, contrary to what the Sorianos argue, the Court sees no basis for diversity
28
jurisdiction because diversity jurisdiction requires not only that there must be complete diversity in
1
citizenship but also that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here,
2
the Sorianos have not made any showing that the damages sought by the Bank would exceed that
3
amount, and it is unlikely that that would be the case given that, on the face of the complaint, the
4
Bank seeks only $44.60 in damages per day as of February 15, 2012, for a total not to exceed
5
$10,000 (as reflected in the caption). See Docket No. 2 (Compl. ¶ 10). The Sorianos contend that
6
their damages exceed $75,000, see Docket No. 3 (Marcelino Soriano Decl. ¶ 1) (stating that he seeks
7
more than $500,000 in damages); see also Docket No. 1 (Not. of Removal ¶ 7) (indicating that the
8
residence at issue is worth more than $75,000), but, as noted above, subject matter jurisdiction
9
depends on the plaintiff’s claims and not the defendant’s counterclaims. Moreover, the fact that the
property at issue may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. If the Bank prevails in its action,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the Sorianos’ “liability will be measured by the fair rental value of the property for the time [they]
12
unlawfully occupied it.” Bank United v. Peters, No. C 11-1756 PJH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54884,
13
at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2011) (also stating that “the amount in controversy is not the assessed
14
value or the sales value of the property”).
15
Accordingly, the Court remands the case to the state court from which it was removed. Any
16
argument that the Sorianos have that the foreclosure was improper should be made before the state
17
court, which has jurisdiction over the case, and not this Court.
18
II.
CONCLUSION
19
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Bank’s motion to remand.
20
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close
21
22
the file in the case.
This order disposes of Docket No. 13.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: May 21, 2012
27
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
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?