Hasib Siddique v. Bank of America NA et al
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 17 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants fail to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met, and the case presents no federal question, the court concludes that it lac ks subject matter jurisdiction. Removal was therefore improper and the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and REMANDS the entire matter to state court. The court also VACATES he pending Motion to Dismiss. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court,North District, Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse,Lancaster No. MC 023945. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 8/8/2013 (lc).
<![CDATA[
Hasib Siddique v. Bank of America NA et al
Doc. 25
1
2
O
3
4
5
cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Lost Angeles Superior Court,North District,
Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley
Courthouse,Lancaster No. MC 023945
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
HASIB SIDDIQUE,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE BANK FSB; BANK
OF AMERICA, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE
ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST
ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
TITLE,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-00148 DDP (CWx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
[Dkt. No. 17]
19
20
Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint against Defendants in
21
California state court on December 7, 2012.
Plaintiff’s Complaint
22
brings various state law claims stemming from Defendants’ allegedly
23
unlawful foreclosure on his home.
24
this court on January 9, 2013, on the basis of diversity
25
jurisdiction.
26
Complaint, while Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand Action to
27
State Court.
28
finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore
Defendants removed the action to
Defendants have since filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Having reviewed the parties’ moving papers, the court
Dockets.Justia.com
1
remands the case to state court.
2
In a case that has been removed to federal court based on
3
diversity jurisdiction, the proponent of jurisdiction “has the
4
burden to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that removal is
5
proper.”
6
Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010).
7
presumption against removal jurisdiction,” and federal jurisdiction
8
“must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
9
in the first instance.”
10
11
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.
There is a “strong
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must
12
exceed “the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
13
costs.”
14
demand a dollar amount, the removing defendant bears the burden of
15
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
16
controversy exceeds [$75,000].”
17
Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997).
18
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
“Where the complaint does not
Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Here, Plaintiff seeks “damages and other relief according to
19
proof,” as well as cancellation or reformation of the note and deed
20
of trust.
21
of the Complaint that the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more.
22
Defendants allege in the Notice of Removal, however, that the value
23
of the loan was $317,011.
24
this loan amount is indicative of the value of the property, which
25
it asserts is relevant to determining the amount in controversy.
26
(Id. ¶ 12.)
27
28
(Compl. ¶7.)
Accordingly, it is not clear on the face
(¶¶ 12- 13.)
Defendants suggest that
First, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the court sees
no specific allegations as to damages or penalties suggesting that
2
1
the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more.
Second, it is true
2
that “[i]n a suit to quiet title, the amount in controversy is the
3
value of the subject property.”
4
Registration Sys. Inc., No. CV-11-1864, 2012 WL 1520123, at *2 (D.
5
Ariz. May 1, 2012) (citing Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.,
6
651 F.3d 1039, 1045 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
7
district court in this Circuit has concluded that “[t]he amount of
8
the promissory note simply does not establish the value of the
9
underlying property.”
McLaughlin v. Mortgage Elec.
However, at least one
McLaughlin, 2012 WL 1520123, at *2.
As that
10
court explained: “Sadly for homeowners and the economy, one no
11
longer reasonably can presume that the amount of a mortgage loan
12
equals or is less than the value of the property securing it.”
13
This court agrees.
14
the deed of trust, which secures the promissory note, Plaintiff
15
does not request as relief rescission of the actual loan.
16
could he, as Plaintiff clearly “owes someone money” on the
17
promissory note.
Id.
Further, although Plaintiff does seek to vacate
Nor
Id.
18
Because Defendants fail to establish by a preponderance of
19
evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met, and the
20
case presents no federal question, the court concludes that it
21
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
22
and the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and
23
REMANDS the entire matter to state court.
24
the pending Motion to Dismiss.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Removal was therefore improper
The court also VACATES
26
27
Dated:
August 7, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
28
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?
