Verma v. Homerward Residential, Inc.
Filing
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED Show Cause Response due by 4/18/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/8/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
BALAK VERMA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No.: C13-0327 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED
13
14
15
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiffs filed this action in the San Mateo County Superior Court on December
19
21, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Defendants subsequently timely removed this case to federal
20
court on the ground of diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.) The parties appeared before
21
the Court on April 4, 2013, on Defendants’ motion to dismiss; however, upon
22
consideration of the motion, the Court has determined that it may not have subject matter
23
jurisdiction over this case.
24
Although Plaintiffs do not object to Defendants’ removal, the Court has an
25
independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction
26
whenever a case is removed to federal court. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115,
27
1116 (9th Cir. 2004). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the
28
right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1
1992). Given the “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, the defendant
2
always bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Id.
3
Defendants removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Federal
4
diversity jurisdiction “is determined (and must exist) as of the time the complaint is filed
5
and removal is effected.” Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass'n. of Am., 300 F.3d 1129,
6
1131 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690 (9th Cir.
7
1998) (diversity must exist when action is removed). As the record indicates, however,
8
complete diversity between the parties was lacking at the time of removal as Defendant
9
T. D. Service Company (“TDSC”) is incorporated in California.
10
Defendants nonetheless contend that “TDSC’s citizenship is irrelevant to the
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
diversity inquiry because it filed a declaration of non-monetary status pursuant to
12
California Civ Code § 2924l in the State Court Action on January 23, 2013. As such,
13
under the Civil Code § 2924l(d), TDSC has transformed itself into a non-party to this
14
action.” (Id. at ¶ 6.B.iv.) Defendants are correct that Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l allows
15
16
17
18
a trustee under a deed of trust[,] named in an action or proceeding in which
that deed of trust is the subject, and in the event that the trustee maintains a
reasonable belief that it has been named in the action or proceeding solely
in its capacity as trustee, and not arising out of any wrongful acts or
omissions on its part in the performance of its duties as trustee,…[to] file a
declaration of nonmonetary status.
19
Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l(a). Defendants are further correct that some “[f]ederal courts
20
have acknowledged that a party that invokes non-monetary status under Civil Code §
21
2924l…is not to be treated as a defendant to the action, thus, its ‘citizenship is
22
disregarded for purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction.’” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 6.B.iv
23
(quoting Cabriales v. Aurora Loan Servs., 2010 WL 761081 (N. D. Cal. March 2, 2010).)
24
However, California Civil Code § 2924l(c)-(e) also provides a 15-day window in
25
which other parties to the action may object to such a declaration and that “[i]n the event
26
of a timely objection to the declaration of nonmonetary status, the trustee shall thereafter
27
be required to participate in the action or proceeding.” Id. at (d). Courts in this District
28
and others have held that where that 15-day window is not fully observed, that is, where
2
considered “nominal” such as to be excluded from the diversity analysis. See Wise v.
3
Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 2011 WL 1466153 at *4 (N. D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) (finding that
4
where an action was removed only four days after trustee-defendant filed its declaration
5
of non-monetary status, the 15-day window had not run and “[a]ccordingly, at the time of
6
removal, [Trustee-Defendant] had not yet attained non-monetary status and was not yet a
7
nominal party for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”); Boggs v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,
8
2012 WL 2357428 at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) (remanding action where removal
9
occurred 14 days after the trustee-defendant filed its declaration of non-monetary status
10
because “the Court cannot disregard Golden West's citizenship for purposes determining
11
Northern District of California
an action is removed before the 15 days have expired, the declaring-trustee is not
2
United States District Court
1
whether Plaintiffs and Defendants are completely diverse”); Hernandez v. First Horizon
12
Loan Corp., 2011 WL 2531959 at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) (“Because Removing
13
Defendants removed the action less than fifteen days after Quality filed its declaration of
14
non-monetary status, Quality had not yet been transmuted into a nominal party at the
15
time of removal. Therefore, the Court cannot disregard Quality's citizenship for purposes
16
of removal.”); see also Sun v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 WL 454720 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
17
8, 2010) (remanding action to state court because defendants removed the action to
18
federal court “only 13 days after [Trustee-Defendant] filed its Declaration of Non-
19
monetary Status…. Thus, at the time of removal [Trustee-Defendant] did not have
20
nominal status.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
21
Here, Defendants removed the action on January 23, 2012, the same day TDSC
22
filed its declaration of non-monetary status. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-2.) Hence, the requisite 15
23
days had not passed and TDSC was not yet a “nominal party” at the time of removal. As
24
a result, the Court is not convinced that it may exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case.
25
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to show cause why this case should not be
26
remanded to the San Mateo County Superior Court. In particular, Defendants shall file a
27
response in writing by April 18, 2013 that demonstrates how this Court has federal
28
jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be filed by April 25, 2013. The Court will
3
1
take the issue under submission at that time. The Court will defer a ruling on the motion
2
to dismiss and a referral to the Court’s ADR project until it determines that it has subject
3
matter jurisdiction.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
Dated: April 8, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?