Charles W. Bartlett et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
| Sandra L. Bartlett and Charles W. Bartlett |
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., NDeX West, LLC and Does |
| 2:2013cv06397 |
| August 30, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| John E. McDermott |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Christina A. Snyder. On August 30, 2013, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court. Defendantcontends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship. Dkt. #1. On September 19, 20 13, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order as to a foreclosure sale scheduled for September 26, 2013. Dkt. #7. First, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction overplaintiffs' c laims on the basis of diversity. "Section 1332 of Title 28 confers jurisdictionon federal courts where there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants.Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the partieseach defendantmust be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff." Absent further guidance from the Ninth Circuit, theCourt is disinclined to revisit this conclusion here. Therefore, because the Court findsthat Wells Fargo's principal p lace of business is in California and plaintiffs are Californiacitizens, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.Moreover, because plaintiff's complaint asserts only state law claims, it does notappear tha t the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this case on the basis of a federalquestion. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court'ssubject matter jurisdiction, which would make removal of this action imprope r. Due tothis lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court declines to consider plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order. In accordance with the foregoing, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by no later than September 23, 2013, why this case should not be remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Refer to document for details of the Court's order. (pso)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
