Nguyen v. Washington Mutual Bank N.A. et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court; and Denying 13 Motion to Correct. FURTHER ORDERED that 10 Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have 10 days from entry of this order to file the amended complaint attached as Exhibit A to her motion for leave to amend (Doc. #10, Exhibit A). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/4/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

HANH NGUYEN,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.;
et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

2:11-cv-1799-LRH-RJJ
ORDER

Before the court are plaintiff Hanh Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) motion to remand (Doc. #71);

15
16

motion for leave to file amended complaint (Doc. #10); and motion to correct motion to remand

17

(Doc. #13).

18

I.

19

Facts and Procedural History
In September 2007, Nguyen purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of

20

trust. Eventually, Nguyen defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial

21

foreclosure proceedings.

22

Subsequently, Nguyen filed a complaint against defendants in state court. Doc. #1,

23

Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

24

Doc. #1. Thereafter, Nguyen filed the present motion to remand. Doc. #7.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

II.

Motion To Remand (Doc. #7)

2

A. Legal Standard

3

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

4

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

5

defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the

6

place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

7

Removal of a case to a United States district court may be challenged by motion. 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 1441(c). A federal court must remand a matter if there is a lack of jurisdiction. Id. Removal

9

statutes are construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state court. See Shamrock

10

Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

11

(9th Cir. 1992). On a motion to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong presumption against

12

removal, and bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67;

13

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996).

14

B. Discussion

15

A district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens

16

of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.

17

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Further, an action based on diversity jurisdiction is “removable only if none of

18

the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such

19

action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

20

Here, defendants argue that there is complete diversity between the parties because Nguyen

21

is a citizen of the State of Nevada while defendants are citizens of various other states. Further,

22

defendants contend that the amount in controversy requirement has been met because the value of

23

the property at issue is more than $75,000. The court agrees. All defendants are diverse defendants

24

and the value of the property exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the court finds that the exercise of

25

diversity jurisdiction is appropriate and shall deny Nguyen’s motion to remand accordingly.

26

2

1

III.

Motion To Amend (Doc. #10)

2

A party may amend its pleadings after a responsive pleading has been filed by leave of

3

court. FED . R. CIV . P. 15(a)(2). Leave of court to amend should be freely given when justice so

4

requires and when there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the moving

5

party. See Wright v. Incline Village General Imp. Dist., 597 F.Supp.2d 1191 (D. Nev. 2009); DCD

6

Programs, LTD v. Leighton, 883 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987).

7

Here, Nguyen requests leave to amend her complaint to supplement the allegations in the

8

complaint and add new causes of action. See Doc. #10. A copy of the proposed amended complaint

9

is provided in accordance with LR 15-1. Doc. #10, Exhibit A.

10

The court finds that there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on behalf of

11

Nguyen in requesting leave to amend her complaint. Further, the court finds that the matter is early

12

in litigation and that the defendants would not be prejudiced by allowing amendment. Accordingly,

13

the court shall grant Nguyen’s motion to amend.

14
15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. #7) and motion to
correct (Doc. #13) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. #10) is

18

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days from entry of this order to file the amended

19

complaint attached as Exhibit A to her motion for leave to amend (Doc. #10, Exhibit A).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED this 4th day of May, 2012.

22
23
24

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26

3