Amorati et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 12 motion to remand is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/10/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 9 JOHN AMORATI and KAREN AMORATI 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 3:11-cv-0331-LRH-VPC ORDER Before the court is plaintiffs John and Karen Amorati’s (“the Amoratis”) motion to remand 16 filed on June 28, 2011. Doc. #12.1 17 I. 18 Facts and Procedural History The Amoratis purchased real property through a mortgage note and deed of trust executed 19 by defendant First Ohio Banc & Lending, Inc. Eventually, the Amoratis defaulted on the mortgage 20 note and defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. 21 Subsequently, the Amoratis filed a complaint against defendants in state court. Defendants 22 removed the action to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1. Thereafter, the 23 Amoratis filed the present motion to remand. Doc. #12. 24 /// 25 26 1 Refers to the court’s docket entry number. 1 II. Legal Standard 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district 3 courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the 4 defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the 5 place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 6 Removal of a case to a United States district court may be challenged by motion. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1441(c). A federal court must remand a matter if there is a lack of jurisdiction. Id. Removal 8 statutes are construed restrictively and in favor of remanding a case to state court. See Shamrock 9 Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 10 (9th Cir. 1992). On a motion to remand, the removing defendant faces a strong presumption against 11 removal, and bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67; 12 Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996). 13 III. Discussion 14 A district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions where the suit is between citizens 15 of different states and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000. 16 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Further, an action based on diversity jurisdiction is “removable only if none of 17 the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such 18 action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). 19 Here, defendants argue that there is complete diversity between the parties because non- 20 diverse defendant Kirk K. Smith (“Smith”) is a fraudulently joined defendant whose citizenship 21 cannot defeat the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. A fraudulently joined defendant does not 22 “defeat removal on diversity grounds.” Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 23 1998). Fraudulent joinder “occurs when a plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident 24 defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the settled rules of the state.” Ritchey, 139 F.3d at 25 1318; see also McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987); Kruso v. 26 2 1 International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1426-27 (9th Cir. 1989); Gasnik v. State Farm Ins. 2 Co., 825 F.Supp. 245, 247 (E.D. Cal. 1992). In determining whether a cause of action is stated 3 against a non-diverse defendant, courts look only to a plaintiff’s pleadings. Gardner v. UICI, 508 4 F.3d 559, 561 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 In Nevada, the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to assert a claim for relief when the 6 allegations “give fair notice of the nature and basis” for a claim. Vacation Village, Inc. v. Hitachi 7 Am., Ltd., 874 P.2d 744, 746 (Nev. 1994). 8 The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that the 9 Amoratis have failed to sufficiently assert any claim for relief against non-diverse defendant Smith. 10 The sole allegation against Smith in the entire complaint only identifies Smith as the trustee of the 11 deed of trust and states that he is included as a defendant for the sole purpose of enforcing any non- 12 monetary judgment. There are no separate causes of action alleged against him. Thus, based on the 13 allegations in the complaint, the court finds that non-diverse defendant Smith is a fraudulently 14 joined defendant whose citizenship does not defeat the exercise of diversity jurisdiction. 15 Accordingly, the court finds that there is complete diversity between the parties and that the 16 exercise of diversity jurisdiction is appropriate. 17 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. #12) is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED this 10th day of August, 2011. 21 22 23 __________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?