Quiroga v. Wells Fargo Financial Services, Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 7 Motion to Remand (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2014)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8
9

Case No.: CV 14-01332-KAW

JOHN A. QUIROGA,

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

(Dkt. No. 7)

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff John A. Quiroga filed this case against Defendants Wells Fargo and NDeX West,

13

LLC in San Francisco Superior Court on February 18, 2014. Wells Fargo removed the case to

14

federal court on March 21, 2014. On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case

15

to state court.

16

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution

17

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and finds that Wells Fargo is a citizen

18

of South Dakota for diversity purposes. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

19

I. LEGAL STANDARD

20

District courts have jurisdiction in civil actions where there is complete diversity of

21

citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of

22

interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). There is a “strong presumption against removal

23

jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). This principle dictates that

24

the removal statute be “strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Id.

25

II. DISCUSSION

26

Plaintiff maintains that this case should be remanded to state court on the grounds that

27

Wells Fargo is a citizen of California, and the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.

28

///

1

A. Citizenship of Wells Fargo for Diversity Purposes

2

Plaintiff, a citizen of California, argues that Wells Fargo is also a California citizen, and

3

that this case must, therefore, be remanded to state court because there is not complete diversity

4

of citizenship between the parties. Wells Fargo argues that it is a citizen of South Dakota, where

5

its main office is located, but that its principal place of business is in California.

6

Defendant’s citizenship for diversity purposes is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1348, which
provides that national banks “shall...be deemed citizens of the States in which they are

8

respectively located.” While there was a split among the district courts regarding Wells Fargo’s

9

citizenship, the Ninth Circuit recently held that “under § 1348, a national banking association is a

10

citizen only of the state in which its main office is located. Accordingly, Wells Fargo is a citizen

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

only of South Dakota, where its main office is located.” Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, ---

12

F.3d ----, No. 12-55278, 2014 WL 1243869, at *7 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014).

13

The Court, therefore, finds that Wells Fargo is a citizen of the state where it maintains its

14

main office—South Dakota. Additionally, since there is no dispute that NDeX is both a citizen of

15

Delaware and a nominal party, there is complete diversity between the parties.

16
17

B. Amount in Controversy
Plaintiff also argues that this case should be remanded because Wells Fargo has failed to

18

prove that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Jurisdictional facts are

19

determined on the basis of a plaintiff’s complaint at the time of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

20

Defendant need only set forth underlying facts supporting that the threshold requirement is met in

21

the removal petition if the amount of the plaintiff’s damages are unclear from the complaint. Ngoc

22

Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Sanchez

23

v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403–04 (9th Cir.1996). “Defendant must prove that

24

more likely than not the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Ngoc Nguyen, 749 F. Supp. 2d

25

at 1028 (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.1992); Sanchez, 102 F.3d at 404).

26

When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the value of the object of the litigation determines

27

the amount in controversy. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s

28

complaint, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court, sought unspecified damages,
2

1

including an injunction preventing the transfer of real property, which had an original loan

2

amount of $360,000. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 37.) As this amount greatly exceeds $75,000,

3

the Court finds that Defendant has established that the amount in controversy likely exceeds

4

$75,000.
III. CONCLUSION

5
6

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 25, 2014

______________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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