Petra Martinez v. America's Wholesale Lender

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2019
• Docket: 18-17058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETRA MARTINEZ; STANLEY No. 18-17058 ATKINSON, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-02869-LHK Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their action alleging state law claims arising out of

foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

consider sua sponte whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Elhouty v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 886 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 2018). We vacate

and remand.

Plaintiffs filed this action in state court alleging only state law claims against

America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”). AWL removed the case to federal court

on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

AWL represented in its removal papers that it “was a corporation

incorporated” in New York and had its principal place of business in New York.

Plaintiffs attached to their complaint records from the State of New York

suggesting that “American Wholesale Lender, Inc.” had dissolved in 2016.

On appeal, AWL states that AWL is a “fictitious business name used by

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,” but the record is devoid of any information

concerning Countrywide’s state of incorporation and principal place of business.

We are unable on this record to make a determination as to whether diversity

jurisdiction existed. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992)

(recognizing presumption against removal jurisdiction; we “strictly construe the

removal statute,” and reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right

of removal in the first instance”). We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment

and remand for further proceedings.

AWL’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as moot.

2 18-17058 The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

3 18-17058