Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01218/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01218-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANTONIO BONETE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-1218 EMC

ORDER DISCHARGING OSC; AND

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE

Previously, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) directed to Plaintiff Jose

Antonio Bonete. In the order, the Court instructed Mr. Bonete to show cause why his case should

not be dismissed based on his failure to oppose Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A’s motion to

dismiss. The Court also instructed Mr. Bonete to address the substantive arguments raised in Wells

Fargo’s motion in his response to the OSC. See Docket No. 24 (OSC).

Thereafter, Mr. Bonete filed an opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion. See Docket No. 25

(opposition). While Mr. Bonete’s opposition did not explain why he failed to file an opposition

previously, the Court deems the opposition a response sufficient to discharge the OSC. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the OSC issued to Mr. Bonete.

The Court, however, now orders supplemental briefing from Wells Fargo. First, Wells Fargo

shall file a reply brief to Mr. Bonete’s opposition. Second, Wells Fargo shall file a supplemental

brief on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional issue in need of additional briefing relates to the citizenship of the other

defendant in the case, RTS Pacific, Inc. Wells Fargo has claimed diversity jurisdiction in this case

(justifying removal from state court to this Court) because Mr. Bonete is a citizen of California, and

Case 3:15-cv-01218-EMC Document 27 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Given the similarity in name, Regional Trustee Services Corporation and RTS may well be

affiliated companies.

2 See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 22-34 (alleging that not only Wells Fargo but also RTS failed to

comply with the statutory requirements for nonjudicial foreclosure and that they did so knowingly as

part of an effort to fraudulently foreclose).

2

both it and RTS are not. However, Wells Fargo seems to have offered proof of a different

company’s citizenship – i.e., Regional Trustee Services Corporation.1 See Docket No. 1 (Exhibit F

attached to the notice of removal). The Court therefore orders Wells Fargo to provide evidence of

RTS’s citizenship. 

If RTS is a citizen of California, then Wells Fargo should further address why RTS should be

considered a nominal defendant whose citizenship can be disregarded for diversity jurisdiction

purposes (as Wells Fargo contends in its notice of removal) in light of (1) case law holding that “a

declaration of non-monetary status filing does not render the party filing such a document irrelevant

to the jurisdictional/citizenship analysis,” Castle v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. CV 15-1657-GW(ASx),

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55658, a *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015), and (2) allegations in the complaint

that RTS included substantive allegations of wrongdoing on its part.2

 See LPP Mortg., Ltd. v.

Herschelle, No. 13-cv-04330-JSC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101199, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2014)

(noting that “[c]ourts often conclude that a trustee under a deed of trust is a nominal party except

where the complaint includes substantive allegations and asserts claims for monetary damages

against the trustee”). 

The reply brief and supplemental brief shall be filed within one week of the date of this

order. The Court shall thereafter determine whether a hearing is needed on the motion to dismiss

and the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01218-EMC Document 27 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2