Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Betty Bogar v. Pnc Mortgage

March 18, 2013

BETTY BOGAR
v.
PNC MORTGAGE, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Shannon Reilly

Courtroom Deputy

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

None

None Present

Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On January 31, 2013, Plaintiff Betty Bogar ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendants PNC Mortgage, a division of PNC Bank, N.A. and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 19, 2013, Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation filed a Declaration of Non-Monetary Status. On February 21, 2013, Defendant PNC Bank, N.A. ("PNC") filed a Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 ("Notice of Removal"), alleging that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).*fn1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School , 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). "Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Duncan v. , 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant PNC bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

Diversity jurisdiction founded under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(a) requires that (1) all plaintiffs be of different citizenship than all defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. Defendant PNC has failed to demonstrate that the parties are completely diverse, as both Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.