Hagberg v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERENCE HAGBERG, Case No.: 19cv2379 L (MDD) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 v. STATE COURT 14 SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ("Specialized") removed this 18 wrongful foreclosure action from State court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. 19 For the reasons stated below, the action is remanded. 20 "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 21 authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 22 to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 23 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 24 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Consistent 25 with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed 26 against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of 27 establishing removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The 28 Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 “[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 2 United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 3 The notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1332. Under section 1332(a), original 4 jurisdiction exists in cases of complete diversity, where the amount in controversy 5 exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity, i.e., where each plaintiff is a citizen of a 6 different state from each defendant. 7 Three Defendants have been named in this action, Specialized, Affinia Default 8 Services, LLC ("Affinia") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS"). 9 Specialized did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of Affinia and MERS. 10 Affinia is a limited liability company. (Doc. no. 1 at 3; doc. no. 1-2 at 80-81.)1 The 11 citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is 12 determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma 13 Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 14 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Specialized has not provided any information 15 about Affinia's members' the Court cannot determine whether Affinia is diverse from 16 Plaintiff, who is a California citizen (doc. no. 1 at 3). 17 Specialized also alleges that MERS was incorporated in Delaware. (Id. at 3; doc. 18 no. 1-2 at 83.) As relevant here for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is 19 "deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated 20 and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. 21 §1332(c)(1). Plaintiff alleged MERS's state of incorporation and failed to allege its 22 principal place of business. (Doc. no. 1 at 3; doc. no. 1-2 at 83.) The Court therefore 23 cannot determine whether MERS is diverse from Plaintiff. 24 For the foregoing reasons, the notice of removal fails to establish federal 25 jurisdiction. "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 26 27 28 1 1 || subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This 2 || action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the 3 || County of San Diego. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: December 30, 2019 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28