Chen v. Midland Innovations, NV et al

Filing 46

ORDER REMANDING CASE WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/6/15. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
No. C 15-130 CW

6
7

WEIPING CHEN,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REMANDING CASE

9
10

v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MIDLAND INNOVATIONS NV, WEN WANG,
and HONGDI REN,

13
14

Defendants.
________________________________/

15
On March 20, 2015, this Court issued an order denying

16
17

Plaintiff Weiping Chen's motion to remand.

18

Court reasoned that Chen, a California resident, could not name

19

Hongdi Ren, also a California resident, as a defendant in her

20

suit because Chen did not claim a property interest adverse to

21
22

(Docket No. 32).

The

Ren; thus, the Court retained diversity jurisdiction to hear the
case.

Subsequent to entry of that order, Ren filed an "Answer"

23
24

to Chen's complaint, in which Ren specifically requested that her

25

interest in the property be adjudicated.

(Docket No. 36).

26

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 762.050,

27

any person claiming an interest in property described in a quiet

28

title complaint may appear in the proceeding and, if appearing,

1
2

must appear as a defendant.

Thus, even though Chen could not

name Ren as a defendant, it was arguable that by operation of the

3

above-cited code section, Ren could voluntarily choose to

4

participate in the action as a defendant.

5

Court ordered briefing from the parties on the following two

6

questions: (1) is Ren's "Answer" sufficient to constitute an

7

On May 20, 2015, this

appearance under California Code of Civil Procedure section

8
762.050, and (2) does the Court have jurisdiction to hear the
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

case or must it now be remanded?
The legal standard is firmly established.

"The district

12

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions

13

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

14

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between [ ]

15
16

citizens of different States. . . ."

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Where

a case has been removed from state court to federal court, the

17
18
19

federal court may remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
at any time before final judgment.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If

20

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district

21

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

22

remanded").

23

sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter

24

jurisdiction.

The court may--indeed must--remand an action sua

See Kelton Arms Condominium Owners Ass'n v.

25
Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003).

A

26
27
28

"strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction exists.
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).
2

As the

Gaus

1
2
3
4

removing party, Defendant bears the burden of proving that
jurisdiction exists.

Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th

Cir. 1986).
Chen and Midland filed briefs on the above-listed issues.

5

Chen and Midland do not dispute that Ren's "Answer" is sufficient

6

to constitute an appearance in this case, but they do dispute

7

whether the Court must now remand the case to state court.

8
Midland argues that the Court should either realign the parties
9
10

or sever Ren from the case; in either instance, the Court retains

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

diversity jurisdiction and need not remand the case.

12

that diversity jurisdiction is destroyed and that the Court must

13

remand the case to state court.

14
15
16

Chen argues

In support of its argument that the Court may realign the
parties, Midland cites three cases from the United States Supreme
Court, each standing for the general proposition that the Court

17
18
19

is empowered to arrange the parties to a case according to the
parties' ultimate legal interests.

Midland's Brief (Docket No.

20

41) at 3 (citing Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Sav. Fund, Safe Deposit,

21

Title and Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178 (1905); Hamer v. N.Y. Rys. Co.,

22

244 U.S. 266 (1917); Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314

23

U.S. 63 (1941)).

24

Midland points out that Chen and Ren do not

assert inconsistent interests--that is, they each assert a fifty

25
percent interest in the property--and argues that the Court may,
26
27
28

therefore, make Ren a plaintiff to the quiet title action.
Court is unconvinced that these authorities control in this
3

The

1
2

situation, where Chen asserts a state-law quiet title cause of
action and state statute governing the action requires a specific

3

orientation of the parties.

4

section 762.050 specifically states that a person with a claim to

5

property subject to a quiet title action "shall appear as a

6

defendant."

7

California Code of Civil Procedure

Absent authority in a similar legal context, the

Court is unwilling to negate a specific state statute by

8
realigning parties according to a general principle.
9
Midland next argues that the Federal Rules of Civil

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Procedure permit the Court to dismiss dispensable nondiverse

12

parties.

13

21).

14

necessary because Ren does not claim an interest adverse to Chen.

15
16

Midland's Brief at 4-5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and

Midland argues that Ren's participation in the case is not

As discussed in the Court's previous orders, Chen could not force
Ren to participate in a quiet title action where Chen does not

17
18
19

claim an adverse interest in the property.
Remand, Docket No. 32).

(See Order Denying

However, California law is clear that

20

anyone claiming an interest in the property "may appear in the

21

proceeding."

22

to do so.

23

ability to participate in this action as provided for in the

24

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 762.050.

Ren has now opted

Midland offers no authority for denying Ren the

California law.

25
The Court thus concludes that Ren is a party to this action.
26
27
28

Pursuant to California law, she "shall appear as a defendant."
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 762.050.

Chen and Ren are both citizens
4

1
2

of California and accordingly the case is no longer "between [ ]
citizens of different States."

Thus, the Court lacks diversity

3

jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

4

this action to Alameda County Superior Court and close the file.

5

The clerk shall remand

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: July 6, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District 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
5

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

WEIPING CHEN,

Case No. 15-cv-00130-CW

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 6, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Hongdi Ren
2956 West Castle Pines Terrace
Dublin, CA 94568
Weiping Chen
2956 West Castle Pines Terrace
Dublin, CA 94568
Dated: July 6, 2015

22
23
24
25
26

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court
By:________________________
Nichole Peric, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable CLAUDIA WILKEN

27
28
6