Ramos v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01433
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLEN J. RAMOS, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01433-MMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND; VACATING HEARING 10 U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand, filed May 22, 2020, by which 14 motion plaintiffs seek an order remanding the above-titled action to state court, based on 15 lack of diversity jurisdiction and the doctrine of abstention established in Burford v. Sun 16 Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) has 17 filed opposition; plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers 18 filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate 19 for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing 20 scheduled for July 10, 2020, and rules as follows. 21 First, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, Chase has met its burden of showing 22 diversity of citizenship. It is undisputed that plaintiffs are citizens of California (see 23 Compl. ¶ 1; Mot. at 14:8; Notice of Removal ¶ 6) and that defendant Select Portfolio 24 Servicing, Inc. is a citizen of Utah (see Compl. ¶ 3; Notice of Removal ¶ 9 & Ex. C). As to 25 the other defendants named in the instant action, specifically, Chase and U.S. Bank, 26 N.A., both of which are national banking associations (see Chase’s Request for Judicial 27 1 Notice, Exs. A-C),1 the Court, for the reasons stated by Chase, finds said entities are 2 citizens of Ohio.2 (See id.); see also Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 3 (2006) (holding national banking association is citizen of state where its main office is 4 located according to its articles of association); Shin v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., No. 5 18-CV-02143-YGR, 2018 WL 3392138, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) (holding “Chase is 6 a national banking association with its main office, as designated in its articles of 7 association, in Columbus, Ohio”); Williams v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 15-CV-00792-LHK, 8 2015 WL 1885455, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015) (holding “U.S. Bank, a Delaware 9 corporation whose main office is in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a citizen of Ohio for purposes of 10 diversity jurisdiction”). Accordingly, as the instant action involves claims by citizens of 11 California against citizens of Utah and Ohio, there is complete diversity of citizenship 12 among the parties. 13 Next, the Court finds unpersuasive plaintiffs’ argument that the above-titled action, 14 should be remanded under the doctrine of abstention established in Burford v. Sun Oil 15 Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Plaintiffs assert claims for quiet title, cancellation of 16 instruments, slander of title, and violations of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, 17 and are seeking damages as well as an injunction precluding defendants from completing 18 a non-judicial foreclosure. For the reasons stated by Chase, plaintiffs’ suit does not meet 19 the requirements for abstention under Burford. See United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 20 695, 705 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining Burford abstention requires: that “the state has 21 1 Chase’s unopposed request for judicial notice of public records of the United 22 States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation is hereby GRANTED. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 23 504 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding court may “take judicial notice of matters of public record”); see also Kenery v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 5:13-cv-02411-BLF, 2014 WL 4183274, at *2 24 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) (taking judicial notice of “[p]rintout from the website of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation”). 25 2 Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the citizenship of Clear Recon Corp., a non- 26 party, is not relevant to the Court’s determination as to diversity of citizenship. See Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (“For a case to qualify for federal 27 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), there must be complete diversity of citizenship 1 chosen to concentrate suits challenging the actions of the agency involved in a particular 2 court,” that “federal issues could not be separated easily from complex state law issues 3 || with respect to which state courts might have special competence,” and that “federal 4 || review might disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy” (emphasis added)); see 5 || also Palencia v. Ocwen Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 11-cv-8183-PA, 2011 WL 13223523, at *2 6 || (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2011) (finding Burford abstention unwarranted in action challenging 7 || foreclosure). Moreover, even if Burford abstention were warranted, remand would not be 8 || appropriate here, as plaintiffs seek damages. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 9 || U.S. 706, 721 (1996) (“[W]hile we have held that federal courts may stay actions for 10 || damages based on abstention principles, we have not held that those principles support 11 the outright dismissal or remand of damages actions.”). 12 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for remand is hereby DENIED. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Oo 15 |} Dated: June 26, 2020 {obits do □□□□ MAKINE M. CHESNEY 0 16 United States District Judge g 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28