Juntilla et al v. RESI Home loans IV, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 6 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court; Denying 7 Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing on 6 Motion to Remand; and Granting in part and Denying in part 41 Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Ruling. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/29/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

GERARD JUNTILLA and DIXIE
JUNTILLA,

Case No. 2:12-cv-00790-MMD-PAL

10
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

11
v.
12
13
14

RESI HOME LOANS IV, LLC f/k/a
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, INC.;
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
et al.,

(Motion to Remand - dkt. no. 6;
Motion for Hearing – dkt. no. 7; and
Request for Ruling – dkt. no. 41)

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

This case comes before the Court through Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s

19

(“Wells Fargo”) Petition for Removal. There are multiple pending motions. Plaintiffs

20

have requested an expedited ruling on their Motion to Remand and Motion to Dismiss.

21

The Court grants their request in part and issues a decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

22

Remand. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (dkt. No. 6) is denied.

23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County,

25

Nevada on April 18, 2012. The claims are premised on Plaintiffs’ refinancing of real

26

property in Clark County, Nevada, and the subsequent non-judicial foreclosure

27

proceedings.

28

Nevada, and that Defendants are foreign entities with principal place of business in other

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are residents of Clark County,

1

states. (Complaint (dkt. No. 1), ¶ 4.) The Complaint alleges claims for violation of the

2

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and

3

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), along with a number of state laws fraud

4

based claims and claims for slander of title, quiet title, wrongful foreclosure and violation

5

of Nevada statutes.
On April 25, 2012, Plaintiffs effectuated service on Wells Fargo Bank. Wells

6
7

Fargo timely filed its Petition for Removal on May 11, 2012.

8

II.

ANALYSIS

9

Wells Fargo removed on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction.

10

Plaintiffs argue that there is no diversity of citizenship and no federal question. The

11

Court will address both grounds for removal.

12

A defendant may remove an action to federal court if the plaintiff could have

13

initially filed the complaint in federal court.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

If removal was

14

improper and the federal court lacks jurisdiction, the federal court must remand the case

15

to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is

16

placed on the party seeking removal. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynergy, Inc., 375

17

F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).

18

challenging removal. Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007).

A motion to remand is the proper procedure for

19

A district court analyzes jurisdiction “on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time

20

of removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l

21

Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). The “presence or

22

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’

23

which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented

24

on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482

25

U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Federal question exists if the rights asserted are based on federal

26

law. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 1980).

27

As stated, the Complaint alleges claims arising under RESPA, TILA and FDCPA.

28

These claims involve interpretation of federal law. The Complaint also alleges that the
2

1

court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1331 because the claims for

2

relief arise under 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605 (RESPA). (Complaint (dkt. no. 1), ¶ 2.) The Court

3

has original jurisdiction over these claims. Because the state law claims are all based on

4

the same set of facts, the Court may adjudicate these claims pursuant to the doctrine of

5

supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
In addition, removal was also proper based on diversity jurisdiction.

6

In their

7

Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs challenge the domicile of the corporate defendants.

8

However, the Complaint set forth the state of incorporation and principal place of

9

business of the named defendants and does not allege that any defendant was

10

incorporated in Nevada or has its principal place of business in Nevada. (Complaint

11

(dkt. no. 1) at 3-5.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the amount of controversy is satisfied.

12

In fact, the Complaint alleges damages in excess of $450,000.00.

13

III.

14
15
16
17
18
19

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (dkt. no. 6) is

DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
(dkt. no. 7) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Ruling (dkt. no.
41) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

20
21

DATED THIS 29th day of August 2012.

22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3