Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02573/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02573-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 Defendants alleged Goff's residency and citizenship in the notice of removal 1

(Notice of Removal, 2:4), and reiterated it in their opposition to the notice for remand. 

- 1 - 10cv2573

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA LASTRA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2573-LAB (BLM)

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO

AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL;

AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND

vs.

PHH MORTGAGE CORP F/K/A

CENDANT MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant Clayton Goff removed this action from state court on December 15, 2010,

citing diversity jurisdiction. On December 27, PHH filed a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2011. On January 10, Lastra filed her

amended motion to remand, with the same hearing date.

I. Amendment of Notice of Removal

The notice of removal points out the complaint sought over $75,000 in damages, and

alleged Lastra is a resident of California, Goff is a citizen of Texas, and PHH is a New 1

Jersey corporation. 

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 3
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

 Technically, it is necessary to allege citizenship, not merely residency. Snell v. 2

Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). It is apparent, however, Defendants

intend to allege Lastra is not only a resident but also a citizen of California (see id. at 23

(Civil Cover Sheet, identifying Plaintiiff as a citizen of California). 

 Lastra points out Goff is licensed to practice law in California, not Texas. But that 3

doesn't show Goff isn't a Texas citizen, or that he is a California citizen.

- 2 - 10cv2573

In their opposition to the motion for remand, Defendants admitted they had failed to

allege PHH's principal place of business. They now request leave to amend the notice of

removal to say that PHH is a citizen of New Jersey only, because it has both its principal

place of business there and is incorporated there. Lastra didn't oppose this request, but in

fact admitted it in her motion for remand. (Mot. to Remand, ¶ 5). The request is GRANTED.

The notice of removal is DEEMED AMENDED to clarify that PHH is a citizen of New Jersey.

It is also apparent Defendants intended to allege Lastra is a citizen of California

(rather than merely a resident), though they have not formally done so. Lastra's own 2

pleadings also strongly suggest Lastra is a citizen of California, since she resides here and

intends to continue residing here indefinitely. (Mot. to Remand, ¶¶ 4, 34.) 

Defendants may, no later than the close of business on March 3, 2011, file an ex

parte motion to deem the notice of removal amended to allege Lastra is a citizen of

California.

II. Motion to Remand

Lastra's motion to remand is focused on the absence of a federal question in the

complaint, the injustice she says she has suffered, and the indignity Lastra alleges the state

court suffered by Defendants' violation of its injunction. It also points to evidence Lastra

believes suggests Goff is really a California citizen. And it cites rules, statutes, and 3

precedents pertaining to jurisdiction. But none of this shows removal was improper.

Lastra hasn't shown removal was untimely or that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The

fact that the Court can't exercise federal question jurisdiction doesn't mean it can't exercise

jurisdiction under some other valid provision of law. Assuming (as appears to be the case)

Lastra is a California citizen, the Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1332. Because Defendants are non-citizens of the forum state, Goff could remove

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 10cv2573

this action with PHH's consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1441 and 1446, which is what he

did.

The motion for remand is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should

Defendants fail to show Lastra is a California citizen within the time permitted, however, the

Court will reconsider its decision and this action will be remanded.

III. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Court will reserve judgment on Defendants' unopposed motion for judgment on

the pleadings until it is clear the Court has jurisdiction to reach the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/28/11 Page 3 of 3