The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess
Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS
Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
ORDER RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs Azniv Kelayjian and Hovsep J. Berejikyan bring this action against Defendants Am Trust Bank, F.S.B. ("Am Trust"), JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JP Morgan"), NDeX West, LLC ("NDeX West"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), and Does 1-50. (Docket No. 1.1, [Not. of Removal ("Not.")], Ex. 7 [Compl.] at 1.) Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to their property. (Id.) Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiffs' move "to compel defendants' attorneys to submit an affidavit to the court stating whether or not they are representing the holder in due course [etc.] . . . ." (Docket Nos. 7, 12.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that because Defendants failed to meet their burden of properly alleging the citizenship of all parties in removing this action, they have failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Court therefore REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Accordingly, the Court VACATES all pending motions.
On July 09, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking to quiet title to the property located at 273 Maiden Lane in Montebello, California ("the Property"). (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiffs question the validity of assignments of the deed of trust and the recording of notice of default. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 44, 45.) Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the deed of trust be deemed void, a declaration that the promissory note be deemed fully discharged, a declaration of quiet title, and a judgment preventing Defendants from ever claiming an interest in the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 60-63.) A first amended complaint ("FAC") was also filed on July 9, 2012. (Docket No. 1.2, Not., Ex. Part 2 at 98; Not. ¶ 2.) Defendants did not attach a complete copy of the FAC. While ordinarily the Court would order Defendants to do so, because the parties in the action remained the same, the Court does not require the complete FAC for purposes of this
Defendants timely removed this case on August 23, 2012 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Not.) All properly served Defendants joined in removal.
. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, ...