United States District Court, C.D. California
MICHAEL CULROSS, an individual; MAKI HIRANO, an individual, Plaintiffs,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR. COOPER; BARRET DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TREDER & WEISS, LLP; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 
D. WRIGHT, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 27, 2019, Plaintiffs Michael Culross and Maki Hirano
(“Plaintiffs”) filed this action alleging three
causes of action for dual tracking, wrongful foreclosure, and
unfair business practices in the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles. (Notice of Removal Ex. 1
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Defendant Nationstar
Mortgage LLC doing business as Mr. Cooper
(“Nationstar”) removed this matter based on
federal diversity jurisdiction. (See Notice of Removal ¶
3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs move to remand. (Mot. to Remand
(“Mot.”), ECF No. 9.) For the reasons that
follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and REMANDS
this action to state court.1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
action arises from a dispute regarding a real property loan
on Plaintiff's residence located at 815 Magnolia Street,
South Pasadena, California 91030. (Compl. ¶¶ 1,
15.) On March 27, 2019, Plaintiffs brought this action
against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC
(“Nationstar”) and Barret, Daffin, Frappier,
Treder & Weiss, LLP (“Barret Daffin”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl.
¶¶ 4-5, 7.)
6, 2019, Barret Daffin filed a declaration of non-monetary
status pursuant to California Civil Code § 2941(a).
(Notice of Removal Ex. 3.) Barret Daffin, “knows or
maintains a reasonable belief that it has been named as a
defendant solely in its capacity as a substitute trustee
under said Deed of Trust and that plaintiffs' do not
assert any legally viable claims against Defendant
[omitted].” Id. at 2. A valid non-monetary
declaration would not require Barret Daffin to participate
any further in the action or proceeding. Cal. Civ. Code
10, 2019, Nationstar removed this action based on federal
diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3,
5-13.) Nationstar states it is a citizen of Delaware and
Texas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (Id.
¶ 8.) Plaintiffs are domiciled in California, thus are
citizens of California for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs claim
damages “in the amount of no less than $100,
000.00.” (Id. ¶ 12.)
26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand claiming the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75, 000 to satisfy
diversity jurisdiction. (Mot. 2.)
courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by
the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, §
2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state
court 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in
connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P.
78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. may be removed to federal court only
if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction
over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have
original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal
law, Id. § 1331, or where each plaintiff's
citizenship is diverse from each defendant's citizenship
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, Id.
removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Id.
invokes diversity jurisdiction as grounds for this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal
¶¶ 3, 5-13.) The Supreme Court “ha[s]
consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete
diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff
from the same State as a single defendant deprives the
district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the
entire action.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). Accordingly,
this Motion turns on whether complete diversity exists.
believes it has satisfied the requirements for removal.
(Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3, 5-13.) Nationstar claims
that Plaintiffs are both citizens of California, and
Nationstar is a citizen ...