Geraldine Doyle v. Onewest Bank, Fsb

Ninth Circuit

Geraldine Doyle v. Onewest Bank, Fsb

764 F.3d 1097, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16253, 2014 WL 4115947

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2014

Docket14-56075

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 764 F.3d 1097 (Geraldine Doyle v. Onewest Bank, Fsb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geraldine Doyle v. Onewest Bank, Fsb, 764 F.3d 1097, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16253, 2014 WL 4115947 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellee Geraldine Doyle, along with Kuda Mujeyi, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California asserting claims against several defendants, including Appellant OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”). One of the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Before the District Court, all parties stipulated to sever Mujeyi’s claims and transfer them to the District of Arizona. The District Court ordered Doyle to amend her complaint to reflect the severance, and she did so, filing a Second Amended Complaint in that Court. Doyle then moved to remand the action to California state court under one of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). The District Court granted Doyle’s motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3).

In its order granting remand, the District Court determined the citizenship of the plaintiff class by considering the class as pleaded in Doyle’s Second Amended Complaint, which was filed in the District Court after the action had been removed from state court. This was an error. Under CAFA, “[citizenship of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes shall be determined for purposes of paragraphs (2) through (6) as of the date of filing of the complaint or amended complaint ... indicating the existence of Federal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(7). For the purpose of considering the applicability of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, the District Court should have determined the citizenship of the proposed plaintiff class based on Doyle’s complaint “as of the date the case became removable.” Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir.2013).

The District Court’s order remanding the action to California state court is VACATED and the action is REMANDED to the District Court to allow it to determine whether, considering the plaintiff class as pleaded at the time of removal, any of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3) or (4), applies, and for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellee Geraldine Doyle, along with Kuda Mujeyi, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California asserting claims against several defendants, including Appellant OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”). One of the defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Before the District Court, all parties stipulated to sever Mujeyi’s claims and transfer them to the District of Arizona. The District Court ordered Doyle to amend her complaint to reflect the severance, and she did so, filing a Second Amended Complaint in that Court. Doyle then moved to remand the action to California state court under one of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4). The District Court granted Doyle’s motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3).

In its order granting remand, the District Court determined the citizenship of the plaintiff class by considering the class as pleaded in Doyle’s Second Amended Complaint, which was filed in the District Court after the action had been removed from state court. This was an error. Under CAFA, “[citizenship of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes shall be determined for purposes of paragraphs (2) through (6) as of the date of filing of the complaint or amended complaint ... indicating the existence of Federal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(7). For the purpose of considering the applicability of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, the District Court should have determined the citizenship of the proposed plaintiff class based on Doyle’s complaint “as of the date the case became removable.” Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir.2013).

The District Court’s order remanding the action to California state court is VACATED and the action is REMANDED to the District Court to allow it to determine whether, considering the plaintiff class as pleaded at the time of removal, any of the exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3) or (4), applies, and for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 F.3d 1097, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16253, 2014 WL 4115947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geraldine-doyle-v-onewest-bank-fsb-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack