Caroline Iwuagwu et al v. PNC Bank NA et al
Filing
14
ORDER REMANDING ACTION. The court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement has been met, and that as a result the court lacks jurisdiction. The court REMANDS the action to state court. Accordi ngly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss 8 is VACATED as moot. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, North District Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse, Lancaster, Case number MC024092 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 .(Attachments: # 1 remand letter). (lc). Modified on 8/8/2013 (lc).
<![CDATA[
Caroline Iwuagwu et al v. PNC Bank NA et al
Doc. 14
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CAROLINE IWUAGWU, DONALD
IWUAGWU,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
PNC MORTGAGE, FEDERAL HOME
LOAN MORTGAGE,
16
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-02908 DDP (MANx)
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
17
18
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in state court for wrongful
19
eviction, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, emotional
20
distress, and harassment.
21
assert that the amount in controversy has been met because “the
22
loan which is the subject of the Complaint was in the amount of
23
$380,000.00.”
In the Notice of Removal, Defendants
(¶ 7.)
24
A defendant may remove to federal court “any civil action
25
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
26
States have original jurisdiction . . . .”
27
District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions
28
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Dockets.Justia.com
1
$75,000, exclusive of interest and cost, and is between . . .
2
citizens of different states.”
3
statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, and
4
federal jurisdiction must be rejected if any doubt exists as to the
5
propriety of removal.
6
Cir. 1992).
7
that removal is proper.
8
9
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The removal
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing
Id.
“[I]n cases where a plaintiff’s state court complaint does not
specify a particular amount of damages, the removing defendant
10
bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the
11
evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds” the required
12
amount. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir.
13
1996).
14
establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in
15
controversy exceeds that amount.”
16
In other words, Defendant must “provide evidence
Id.
Here, Defendants use the full value of the loan as the amount
17
in controversy.
18
eviction, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, emotional
19
distress, and harassment - implicates the value of the loan, nor do
20
Plaintiffs seek an amount certain in the Complaint.
21
not give any measure of the potential value of the causes of action
22
or any evidence that such value exceeds $75,000, as is required to
23
establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
However, none of the causes of action - wrongful
2
Defendants do
1
For these reasons, the court finds that Defendants have not
2
met their burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement
3
has been met, and that as a result the court lacks jurisdiction.
4
The court REMANDS the action to state court.
5
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dckt. No. 8) is VACATED as moot.
Accordingly,
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
Dated:
August 7, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
cc: Los Angeles Superior Court, North District
Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley
Courthouse, Lancaster, No.MC024092
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?
