Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02379/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02379-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv2379 L (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERENCE HAGBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, 

LLC et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv2379 L (MDD)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ("Specialized") removed this 

wrongful foreclosure action from State court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. 

For the reasons stated below, the action is remanded.

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 

to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Consistent 

with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed 

against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of 

establishing removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The 

Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:19-cv-02379-L-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv2379 L (MDD)

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

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

The notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1332. Under section 1332(a), original 

jurisdiction exists in cases of complete diversity, where the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity, i.e., where each plaintiff is a citizen of a 

different state from each defendant. 

Three Defendants have been named in this action, Specialized, Affinia Default 

Services, LLC ("Affinia") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS").

Specialized did not sufficiently allege the citizenship of Affinia and MERS. 

Affinia is a limited liability company. (Doc. no. 1 at 3; doc. no. 1-2 at 80-81.)1 The 

citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is 

determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma 

Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage. L.P., 

437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Specialized has not provided any information 

about Affinia's members' the Court cannot determine whether Affinia is diverse from 

Plaintiff, who is a California citizen (doc. no. 1 at 3). 

Specialized also alleges that MERS was incorporated in Delaware. (Id. at 3; doc. 

no. 1-2 at 83.) As relevant here for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is 

"deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated 

and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. 

§1332(c)(1). Plaintiff alleged MERS's state of incorporation and failed to allege its 

principal place of business. (Doc. no. 1 at 3; doc. no. 1-2 at 83.) The Court therefore 

cannot determine whether MERS is diverse from Plaintiff.

For the foregoing reasons, the notice of removal fails to establish federal 

jurisdiction. "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

 

1 Page numbers are assigned by the electronic case filing system.

Case 3:19-cv-02379-L-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv2379 L (MDD)

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

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This 

action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the 

County of San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02379-L-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3