US Bank, NA v. Anderson et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Remand. This matter shall be immediately REMANDED to the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in Canyon County. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the
holders of the BANC OF AMERICA
FUNDING CORPORATION, 2008-FT1
TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2008-FT1,,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00350-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
RONALD H. ANDERSON; CELESTE
ANDERSON; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
whose true identities are unknown, as
occupants of the premises located at
14660 Hensen Drive, Nampa, ID, 83651,
Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to Canyon County Third Judicial
District Court of Idaho (Dkt. 6). The matter is fully briefed and at issue. The Court has
determined that oral argument would not significantly assist the decisional process and
will therefore consider the motion without a hearing. On consideration of the parties’

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

pleadings and being familiar with the record, the Court will grant the motion and remand
the matter, as more fully expressed below.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2011, Plaintiff U.S. Bank brought an action for ejectment in state
court, following a non-judicial deed of trust foreclosure. Plaintiff asserts that it is the
owner of real property located at 14660 Hensen Drive, in Nampa, Idaho by virtue of a
trustee’s sale. The property is currently occupied by Defendants. Defendants filed a
notice of removal to this Court on July 30, 2011. Plaintiff now moves to remand the
action back to state court.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), an action must be “fit for federal adjudication when
the removal petition is filed.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,
159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998). Removal jurisdiction is statutory and strictly
construed. Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 7910 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir.
1986). If there is any doubt as to the right of removal, jurisdiction must be rejected.
Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996).
A defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction when they seek
removal to federal court and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction. Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). The
existence of federal question or diversity jurisdiction is ordinarily determined from the
face of the complaint. Sparta Surgical Corp., 159 F.3d at 1211.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asserts that remand is appropriate because the Court has neither diversity
nor federal question jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute.
1.

No Diversity Jurisdiction
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts
have original jurisdiction over an action if the citizenship of the parties is completely
diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A
corporation is a citizen of the state “by which it has been incorporated” and the state
“where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
However, because removal based on diversity jurisdiction is intended to protect
out-of-state defendants from possible prejudices in state court, removal jurisdiction is
limited to situations in which no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Lively v. Wild
Oat Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a defendant is a citizen of
the state in which the case is brought, there is no need for such protection, and thus
removal is inappropriate. Id. “[T]he presence of a local defendant at the time removal is
sought bars removal.” Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. Of Cal., 393 F.3d 867, 870
(9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Here, Defendants acknowledge they are citizens of Idaho. Notice of Removal,
Dkt. 1 ¶ 6. Also, the amount in controversy – or the amount claimed by plaintiff – is not
met here. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks eviction and restitution of the real property, and not
an award of monetary damages. Compl., Dkt. 1-2. Accordingly, the amount in
controversy does not meet the threshold requirement of $75,000.
Based on the record before it, the Court concludes that it lacks diversity
jurisdiction over the matter because the Defendants are acknowledge citizens of Idaho
and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
2.

No Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal Courts have original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Complaint
here seeks eviction and restitution of real property under state law. Compl., Dkt. 1-2.
There is no allegation that a federal statute has been violated. Defendants do not raise,
nor does the Court find, that this action arises under federal law. Accordingly, the Court
lacks federal question jurisdiction as well.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED.
This matter shall be immediately REMANDED to the District Court of the Third Judicial
District of the State of Idaho, in Canyon County.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

DATED: December 12, 2011

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5