Cornell v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND ENTIRE ACTION TO MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/6/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2018)

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