Ryan Greaux v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al
Filing
15
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: Granting MOTION to Remand Case to Orange County Superior Court 8 , Case number 30-02012-00550033. Mailed certified copies of minute order, docket sheet and CV 103 to Superior Court. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 cv 103) (twdb)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00382-CJC(ANx)
JS-6
Date: May 17, 2011
Title: RYAN GREAUX V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michelle Urie
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND [filed 04/12/12]
Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds
this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local
Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 21, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated
and off calendar.
I. Introduction and Background
Plaintiff Ryan Greaux moves in propria persona to remand the instant action on
the grounds that there is no complete diversity of the parties and all of his claims arise
under state law. For the reasons provided below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
On March 2, 2012, Mr. Greaux filed suit against Defendant Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) in Orange County Superior Court for various state claims
arising from a dispute over efforts to modify his $385,000 home loan and to avoid
foreclosure of his residential property. (Dkt. No. 1, Exh. 1 [Complaint].) On March 13,
2012, Ocwen removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No.
1.) In the Complaint, Mr. Greaux asserted eight causes of action for (1) declaratory
relief, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of contract, (4) violation of California’s
Rosenthal Act, (5) quiet title, (6) injunctive relief, (7) violation of Cal. Civ. Code §
2923.5, and (8) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6. Mr. Greaux filed the operative First
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00382-CJC(ANx)
Date: May 17, 2012
Page 2
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 11, 2012. (Dkt. No. 6.) In the FAC, Mr. Greaux
asserts four claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief, and
violations of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.5 and 2923.6. Mr. Greaux requests, inter alia,
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. On April 12, 2012,
Mr. Greaux filed the instant motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 8.) Ocwen opposed the
motion. (Dkt. No. 13.) Mr. Greaux did not file a reply.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
A civil action brought in a state court, but over which a federal court may exercise
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant to a federal district court. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A suit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
only if it could have been brought there originally.” Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc.,
813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987); Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 631 F.3d 1133, 1135 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] federal court must have both removal
and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case removed from state court.”). Removal
jurisdiction must be determined from the “four corners” of the complaint as it existed at
the time of removal. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th
Cir. 2005). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (“Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).
A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions
arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in
controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. If it appears that the federal
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the
federal court must remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
B. Diversity Jurisdiction
A district court has original “diversity” subject matter jurisdiction over all “civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interests and cost,” and the action is “between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). The district court has jurisdiction only if there is “complete diversity”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00382-CJC(ANx)
Date: May 17, 2012
Page 3
between the parties, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a state different than each
defendant. See id.; Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (citing Strawbridge
v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267) (1806)).
The parties’ dispute turns on whether Ocwen is a California citizen and thus
whether there is complete diversity of the parties. Mr. Greaux suggests that Ocwen is a
California citizen because it conducts business in California and has active status with the
California Secretary of State. (Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Remand, at 3.) Ocwen
argues that there is complete diversity because its purported sole member, Ocwen
Financial Corporation (“Ocwen Financial”), is a non-California citizen. (Def.’s Opp’n, at
2.) A citizen of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of each
member of the company. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,
899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members
are citizens.”) Here, Ocwen has provided evidence that it is a Delaware limited liability
company. (Pornbida Decl. in Supp. Def.’s Opp’n ¶¶ 2–3, Exhs. 1–2.) However, Ocwen
only asserts in conclusory fashion that Ocwen Financial is its sole member, but provides
no supporting evidence that (i) Ocwen Financial is a member of the LLC and (ii) that
Ocwen Financial is its sole member. (See Not. of Removal, at 4; Def.’s Opp’n, at 2.)
Even assuming Ocwen Financial is the sole member of the LLC, Ocwen Financial’s
citizenship is unclear from the materials submitted by Ocwen.1 Thus, Ocwen has not met
its burden of showing that there is complete diversity of the parties and that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction over this matter. In such a case, the removal statute is strictly
construed against removal. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
//
//
1
It appears that Ocwen has erroneously attached two copies of its entity information from the
state of Delaware’s website, rather than information regarding Ocwen Financial. (See Not. of
Removal, Exhs. 2–3; Pornbida Decl., Exhs. 2–3.) Ocwen has submitted a printout from the state
of Florida’s website that lists Ocwen Financial as a Florida corporation with its principal address
in Atlanta, Georgia, but contains no information regarding its state of incorporation or its
affiliation with Ocwen. Ocwen also contradictorily asserts that Ocwen Financial is a citizen of
Delaware and Georgia in its opposition, (Def.’s Opp’n, at 2), and a citizen of Delaware and
Florida in its Notice of Removal, (Dkt. No. 1 [Not. of Removal], at 4). Based on these
submissions, the Court is unable to ascertain whether Ocwen Financial is the sole member of the
LLC or whether Ocwen Financial is a non-California citizen.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 12-00382-CJC(ANx)
Date: May 17, 2012
Page 4
C. Federal Question Jurisdiction
A cause of action arises under federal law only when a question arising under
federal law appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Metro. Life Ins.
Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). Here, both Mr. Greaux’s original Complaint and
the FAC assert only state law claims against Ocwen. In its Notice of Removal, Ocwen
suggests that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a), but has not indicated that any federal claims are implicated that share a
“common nucleus of operative facts” with the state claims to permit the Court to have
original jurisdiction over this action. Additionally, Ocwen cannot remove this case by
asserting a defense based in federal law, as “original jurisdiction is lacking even if a
defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law.” Sullivan, 813 F.2d at 1371.
III. Conclusion
Because Ocwen has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that this Court has
original subject matter jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is
GRANTED. The case is hereby remanded to Orange County Superior Court.
jwp
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk MU
]]>
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?
