UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 29, 2013
TITLE RUBY ROBERTS
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING THIS ACTION TO LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On April 22, 2013, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed this action from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. [Doc. #1.] The Court notes Wells Fargo's thorough exposition of the split in authority among District Courts within the Ninth Circuit regarding where national banks such as Wells Fargo are "located" for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 1348.
"The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
On January 13, 2012, this Court issued a decision in Rouse v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, No. CV 11-00928 DMG (DTBx), 2012 WL 174206, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6962 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012), in which it found that because Wells Fargo's principal place of business is in California, it is also a citizen of the State of California. The Court thereupon remanded the case to state court. Here, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo is a citizen of California. [Doc. #1, Ex. A at ¶ 3.] Plaintiff is also a California citizen (see id. at ¶1). Pursuant to this Court's reasoning in Rouse, it appears that the parties are not diverse. Because the Complaint does not raise any federal claims, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.
Therefore, this action is remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.