Cornell v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 19


Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SAMANTHA CORNELL, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 18-cv-00003-BLF v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND ACTION TO MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Samantha Cornell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bank of 14 America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“Chase Bank”), and MUFG Union 15 Bank (“Union Bank”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in Monterey County Superior Court consisting 16 of a common law claim for money. See ECF 1 at 10 (“Compl.”). On January 2, 2018, Bank of 17 America removed this action to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 18 ECF 1. On February 1, 2018, Bank of America filed an unopposed motion to remand the case to 19 state court upon determining that Union Bank is a citizen of California for purposes of establishing 20 diversity jurisdiction in federal court, and therefore no diversity exists between Plaintiff and Union 21 Bank. See ECF 13, 13-1. 22 This case initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, who issued a 23 report and recommendation (“R&R”) that Bank of America’s unopposed motion to remand be 24 granted because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. See R&R, ECF 25 16. The case thereafter was reassigned to the undersigned judge because not all parties consented 26 to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Order Reassigning Case, ECF 17. 27 28 When a magistrate judge issues an R&R regarding a case-dispositive matter, a party may file “specific written objections” to the R&R within 14 days after being served with the R&R. Fed. 1 R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 2 disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “When no timely 3 objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 4 record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Adv. Comm. Notes to 1983 5 Amend.; see also Grasdalen v. Shartle, No. CV 15-0299-TUC-JGZ (BGM), 2016 WL 4138274, at 6 *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2016) (district court reviews for clear error where no objections are filed); 7 Evony, LLC v. Aeria Games & Entm’t, Inc., No. C 11-0141 SBA, 2014 WL 12658953, at *1 (N.D. 8 Cal. June 12, 2014) (same). The time for parties to file objections to the R&R has passed, and no objections have been 9 filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge van Keulen that 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 because Union Bank and Plaintiff are both citizens of California, the Court does not have diversity 12 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). There is also no basis for federal question 13 jurisdiction as the Complaint does not raise any federal questions. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties 14 do not contest that this action should be remanded to state court. See ECF 13-1 at 3. 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Judge van Keulen’s R&R legally correct, well- 16 reasoned, and thorough, and ADOPTS it in its entirety. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED 17 that: 18 (1) Judge van Keulen’s R&R (ECF 16) is ADOPTED. 19 (2) Bank of America’s unopposed motion to remand (ECF 13) is GRANTED. 20 (3) This action is REMANDED to Monterey County Superior Court; and 21 (4) The Clerk shall close the file. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 Dated: March 6, 2018 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?