Campos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al

Filing 17

ORDER REMANDING ACTION SUA SPONTE TO ALAMEDA SUPERIOR COURT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 30, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GABRIEL CASIAS CAMPOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-5652-JST
ORDER REMANDING ACTION SUA
SPONTE TO ALAMEDA SUPERIOR
COURT

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff Gabriel Casias Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint against Wells Fargo

15

Bank, National Association (“WFB”), NDEX West LLC, and Does 1-20, in Alameda Superior

16

Court on November 20, 2013, bringing causes of action under California Civil Code §§ 2923.5,

17

2923.6, 2923.7 & 2924.17, and California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200. Complaint, Exhibit A to

18
19

Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. WFB removed to this Court on December 6, asserting that all
Defendants’ state citizenships are diverse from Plaintiff’s, that the amount in controversy exceeds

20
21
22
23

$75,000, and that this Court therefore has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Notice of Removal.
The undersigned has recently held that, for diversity purposes, WFB is a citizen of the

24

State of California as well as South Dakota. Vargas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ___ F. Supp. 2d

25

___, 2013 WL 6235575, No. 3:12-cv-02008-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec, 2, 2013). After carefully

26

reviewing the Notice of Removal in this action, the Court finds no reason to depart from that

27
holding. It appears from the Complaint, and WFB itself argues in its Notice of Removal, that
28

1

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. See Complaint ¶ 1; Notice of Removal 2:10-17.

2

Therefore, since Plaintiff brings exclusively state-law causes of action, WFB has not satisfied its

3

burden of demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over this action. See Hertz Corp. v.

4

Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010) (burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction lies with

5

party asserting it); see also Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“strong

6

presumption” against removal jurisdiction must be overcome by removing party).

7
8
9

While Plaintiff has not moved to remand, district courts have an independent obligation to
satisfy themselves of their subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed action. United Investors
Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). “If at any time before

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

final judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

12

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

13

The Court therefore REMANDS this action to Alameda County Superior Court.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18

Dated: December 30, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2