Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Stolte

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 17, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-02138-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JEFFREY M. STOLTE,
Defendant.

Re: ECF Nos. 8, 11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
REMANDING CASE TO STATE
COURT

Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action in Contra Costa County Superior Court in

13

August 2013. ECF No. 1, ¶ 2. Defendant, who is proceeding pro se, removed the case to the

14

Northern District of California in May 2014, where the case was initially assigned to Magistrate

15

Judge Kandis Westmore. Id. On August 5, 2014, Judge Westmore issued an Order to Show

16

Cause, asking Defendant to show that he correctly invoked federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant

17

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). ECF No. 7. Defendant did not file a response to that Order.

18

On August 26, 2014, the case was reassigned to this Court. ECF Nos. 8, 9. In conjunction

19

with the order reassigning the case, Judge Westmore issued a Report and Recommendation To

20

Remand the Case To State Court. ECF No. 8. The Report indicated that the case should be

21

remanded due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction; in particular, a lack of diversity

22

jurisdiction. Id. On August 28, 2014, this Court set September 11, 2014 as the deadline for the

23

parties to respond to Judge Westmore’s Report. ECF No. 11. Neither party filed a response.

24

In her Report and Recommendation, Judge Westmore noted that Defendant once before

25

removed this case to federal court, and in that instance, the case was remanded to state court for

26

lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 8 at 1. Further, as Judge Westmore noted, Plaintiff declared the

27

action a “Limited Civil Case” under California law, with the complaint seeking not more than

28

$10,000. Id.; see also ECF No. 1, Ex. A at 7.

In order for this Court to have diversity jurisdiction over this action, the parties must be

1
2

completely diverse—i.e., be citizens of different states—and more than $75,000 must be in

3

controversy in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Despite Plaintiff’s assertion that it seeks no more

4

than $10,000, Defendant states in his notice of removal that diversity jurisdiction is satisfied

5

because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ECF No. 1 at 3. Defendant provides no

6

support for this allegation, which therefore is inadequate to support jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §

7

1446(c)(2) (“If removal of a civil action is sought on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by

8

section 1332(a), the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the

9

amount in controversy, except [in circumstances not applicable here]”). Likewise, Defendant has
not sufficiently alleged that the parties are completely diverse: in the notice of removal,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant states that “Plaintiff is a Corporation doing business in California,” but mentions

12

nothing regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship—i.e., its state of incorporation or its principal place of

13

business. See London v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 417 F.2d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 1969) (holding that

14

diversity jurisdiction was not adequately alleged where notice of removal failed to allege corporate

15

party’s principal place of business).

16

Given that Defendant has failed to adequately allege the basis of diversity jurisdiction in

17

this Court or to respond to Judge Westmore’s Report and Recommendation1, and that the Court

18

can find no other basis for its jurisdiction, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction

19

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over this action. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that mail sent from the Court to the Defendant was recently returned as
undeliverable. See ECF No. 12. Civil Local Rule 3-11(a) provides that any attorney or party
proceeding pro se “whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file with the
Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new
address.”
2

1

Westmore’s Report and Recommendation and REMANDS this case, No. 14-cv-02138-JST, to the

2

Contra Costa County Superior Court from which it was removed.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3