Poudrier et al v. California Reconveyance Company et al

Filing 19

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to remand 6 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/6/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

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

9

ROBERT RICHARD POUDRIER and
DEBBIE RAYE POUDRIER,

10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13

CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE
COMPANY; et al.,

14

Defendants.

3:11-cv-0107-LRH-RAM
ORDER

15
16

Before the court is plaintiffs Robert Richard Poudrier and Debbie Raye Poudrier’s (“the

17

Poudriers”) motion to remand filed on February 27, 2011. Doc. #6.1 Defendants California

18

Reconveyance Company (“CRC”); Chase Home Finance LLC (“Chase”); and Washington Mutual

19

Savings Bank (“WaMu”) (collectively “defendants”) filed an opposition (Doc. #10) to which the

20

Poudriers replied (Doc. #11).

21

I.

22

Facts and Procedural History
In 2005, the Poudriers purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust.

23

Eventually, the Rohlmans defaulted on the mortgage note and defendants initiated non-judicial

24

foreclosure proceedings.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

On January 10, 2011, the Poudriers filed a complaint for quiet title against defendants in

2

state court. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of

3

diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Thereafter, the Poudriers filed the present motion to remand.

4

Doc. #6.

5

II.

Legal Standard

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

III.

Discussion

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Poudriers are residents of Nevada while defendants are citizens of various other states. Further,

25

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

26

2

1

the property at issue is more than $75,000. In their reply brief, the Poudriers concede that the value

2

of the property is in excess of $75,000 and that all defendants that have been named in the

3

complaint are all non-citizens of Nevada. Accordingly, the court finds that there is complete

4

diversity between the parties and that the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is appropriate.

5

Although there is complete diversity between the parties, the Poudriers argue that the court

6

should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action under Colorado River Water

7

Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). See Doc. #6. However, in order for the

8

court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Colorado River, there must be a parallel or

9

substantially similar proceeding in state court. Security Farms v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters,

10

Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[I]nherent in the

11

concept of abstention is the presence of a pendent state action in favor of which the federal court

12

must, or may, abstain.”). Here, there is no other parallel state action. The only state action was the

13

Poudriers’ initial complaint filed in state court which has been properly removed by the defendants

14

to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the court cannot abstain from

15

exercising jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the court shall deny the Poudriers’ motion to

16

remand.

17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. #6) is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 6th day of May, 2011.

21
22
23

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

3