Bill Buxton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
13
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 8/8/2013, this Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded to Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 12 . Defendant failed to respond. There does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, making removal of this action improper. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. YC068958. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JS-6
Case No.
CV 13-4105 CAS (PLAx)
Title
BILL BUXTON V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 21, 2013
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
I.
(In Chambers:) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
INTRODUCTION
On April 26, 2013, plaintiff Bill Buxton initiated the instant action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Plaintiff
asserts claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) wrongful foreclosure in violation of
California Civil Code § 2923.5; (3) declaratory relief; (4) cancellation of instrument per
California Civil Code § 3412; (5) fraud in origination of his loan; (6) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) rescission; (8) violation of California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (“UCL”), based on underlying
violations of California law.
On June 7, 2013, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court, contending that
the Court has diversity jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. On August 8, 2013,
this Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded to
Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 12. Defendant failed to
respond.
II.
ANALYSIS
First, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of diversity. “Section 1332 of Title 28 confers jurisdiction
on federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants.
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant
must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimarc Corp.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-4105 CAS (PLAx)
Date
Title
JS-6
August 21, 2013
BILL BUXTON V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). As this
Court has found before, a national bank is a citizen of both the state where it has its main
office, as designated by its articles of association, and the state where it has its principal
place of business. See Ochoco v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 12-6196, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 16, 2012) (citing Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, No. EDCV 11-0928, 2012 WL
174206, at *14 (C.D. Cal. 2012)). Absent further guidance from the Ninth Circuit, the
Court is disinclined to revisit this conclusion here. Therefore, because the Court finds
that Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is in California and plaintiffs are California
citizens, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Moreover, because plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state law claims, it does not
appear that the Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, there does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction, making removal of this action improper.
III.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 2 of 2
]]>
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?
