Bank of New York Mellon v. Tarin et al

Filing 7

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 15-cv-0011; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR REMAND. Objections due by 5/22/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 05/08/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Case No. 15-cv-01787-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JAMIE R. TARIN, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO REMAND; ORDER REFERRING
CASE TO JUDGE CHHABRIA FOR
CONSIDERATION OF CASE
RELATION
Re: Dkt. No. 1

12
Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon brought this state law unlawful detainer action against
13
Defendants Jamie R. Tarin and Joe T. Tarin in the Superior Court of California for the County of
14
Contra Costa. Defendants, representing themselves, removed the action to this Court on the basis
15
of diversity jurisdiction. The parties have not yet indicated whether they consent to proceed
16
before the undersigned judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). In addition, this case appears to
17
concern substantially the same parties, property, and events as a recently-filed case assigned to
18
Judge Chhabria, Bank of New York v. Tarin, et al., No. 15-cv-00011-VC. Accordingly, the
19
undersigned refers this case to Judge Chhabria for consideration of case relation. If Judge
20
Chhabria finds that the matters are not related, the case should be reassigned randomly to a district
21
judge. The undersigned recommends that this case be remanded.
22
23

DISCUSSION
Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear the burden of

24
establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute
25
against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Further,
26
when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself
27
that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th
28

1

Cir 2004) (“W are obliga to consid sua spon whether w have subj matter
r.
We
ated
der
nte
we
bject

2

jurisdiction.”). See also Fe R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“ the court determines at any time t it lacks
ed.
P
“If
that

3

bject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss t action.”)
j
m
the
).
sub

4

The Co has revie
ourt
ewed the No
otice of Remo
oval and has determined that subjec matter
s
d
ct
jurisdiction doe not exist. Jurisdiction founded on diversity “requires that the parties be in
es
n
n
t

6

com
mplete diver
rsity and the amount in controversy e
c
exceed $75,0
000.” Matheson v. Prog
gressive

7

Spe
ecialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2
C
d
0
2003). Comp
plete diversity means tha “each of
at

8

the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a diff
e
m
ferent state th each of the defendan
han
nts.” Allstat Ins. Co. v.
te
.

9

Hu
ughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 10 (9th Cir. 2004). Def
095
fendants hav not establi
ve
ished that th parties are
he
e

10

div
verse or that the amount in controver exceeds $
rsy
$75,000. Th face of the state court complaint
he
t

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

states that the amount demanded is less than $10,0 00 and Defe
a
s
endant’s noti of remov states tha
ice
val
at

12

Pla
aintiff is a co
orporation do
oing busines in Californ and that Defendants are individu residing
ss
nia
uals

13

in California. Notice of Removal [Do
C
R
ocket No. 1] at ¶¶ 5-6; Co
omplaint [D
Docket No. 1 at 32] at 1.

14

Fur
rther, even if the require
ements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 were met, remov would sti be
r
e
val
ill

15

imp
proper becau Defenda
use
ants—all Cal
lifornia resid
dents—are p
precluded fro removing an action
om
g

16

wh they are citizens of the state in which the act
here
t
w
tion was bro
ought. 28 U.
.S.C. § 1441
1(b)(2) (“A

17

civ action oth
vil
herwise remo
ovable solely on the basi of the juris
y
is
sdiction und section 13 (a) of
der
332

18

this title may not be remov if any of the parties i interest pr
s
n
ved
in
roperly joine and served as
ed
d

19

def
fendants is a citizen of th State in which such ac
he
w
ction is brou
ught.”).

20
21
22

Because this court lacks subject matter juri sdiction, the court recom
l
e
mmends that this case be
t
e
rem
manded to Contra Costa County Superior Court.
Any pa may file objections to this report and recomm
arty
t
t
mendation w the distr court
with
rict

23

jud within 14 days after being served with a copy See 28 U.
dge
4
d
y.
.S.C. §636(b
b)(1)(B); Fed R. Civ. P.
d.

24

72( Civil L.R 72-3. Fai
(b);
R.
ilure to file objections w
o
within the spe
ecified time may waive t right to
the

25

app the distr court’s ultimate orde
peal
rict
u
er.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 8, 2015

________
___________
__________
___________
_
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

28
2