Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1, No. 20-16898 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a wrongful foreclosure action, holding that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to the state court from which it had been removed to federal court by a party not named in the complaint. Constrained by the text of 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), the panel declined to follow the Second Circuit's La Russo rule, but instead held that only the actual named defendant or the defendants may remove a case under that removal provision. In this case, DBNTC was not a defendant when it removed this case, and thus the district court should have remanded the case. Accordingly, the court remanded to the state court.
Court Description: Removal Jurisdiction. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of a wrongful foreclosure action and remanding, the panel held that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to the state court from which it had been removed to federal court by a party not named in the complaint. The removing party argued that, as trustee for one of the named defendants, it was entitled to remove the lawsuit because it was the “real party defendant in interest.” Disagreeing with the Second Circuit, the panel held that, under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), only a named defendant may remove an action to federal court. ** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. SHARMA V. HSI ASSET LOAN OBLIGATION TRUST 2007-1 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.