Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01262/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01262-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

TUAN FIELD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA , N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01262-NJV

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 8

This action was removed to this court on March 18, 2015, from the Superior Court of the 

State of California, County of Del Norte. (Doc. 1.) On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion 

to Remand. (Doc. 8.) The court took the matter under submission on the papers pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). (Doc. 26.) For the reasons discussed below, the court denies Plaintiffs' 

motion.

BACKGROUND

This action concerns a purchase loan, the possible refinancing of that loan, and the 

foreclosure on the related deed of trust on real property in Del Norte County, California. The 

complaint alleges seven causes of: 1) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 2) 

promissory estoppel; 3) anticipatory breach; 4) violation of Cal. Civil Code § 2923.55; 5) violation 

of Cal. Civil Code § 2923.7; 6) violation of Cal. Civil Code § 2923.12; and 7) unfair business 

practices. (Doc. 1-2, Exh. A.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only 

over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Case 1:15-cv-01262-NJV Document 28 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In the case of removal, the burden is on the defendant to show the 

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Diversity subjection matter jurisdiction requires all parties to the action to be citizens of different

states and for the amount in controversy to exceed the value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

DISCUSSION

This action was removed by Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("Select Portfolio 

Servicing"), and National Default Servicing Corporation ("National Default Servicing") on the 

ground that this court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Defendant Bank of 

America, N.A. ("Bank of America"), has consented to the removal. Wood Decl., para. 7, Doc. 1-

2.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2). Plaintiffs now contend that the court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs reside in and are citizens of California. Defendants allege in 

their Notice of Removal that Select Portfolio Servicing is incorporated under the laws of the State 

of Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. They therefore assert that 

Select Portfolio Servicing is a citizen of Utah. Defendants allege that National Default Servicing 

is incorporated under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its principal place of business in 

Phoenix, Arizona. They therefore assert that National Default Servicing is a citizen of Arizona.

Finally, Defendants allege in their Notice of Removal that Bank of America is incorporated under 

the laws of the State of North Carolina, with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North 

Carolina. They therefore assert that Bank of American is a citizen of North Carolina. 

In their Motion for Remand, Plaintiffs assert that Bank of America is a California citizen. 

Plaintiffs are mistaken. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1348, for the purposes of all actions except those 

involving the United States as a party, all national banking associations are "citizens of the States 

in which they are respectively located." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a 

national banking association is a citizen of the state where its articles of association designate its 

“main office.” See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 313–314 (2006). Bank of 

America is a national banking association with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is 

Case 1:15-cv-01262-NJV Document 28 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

therefore a citizen of North Carolina. McGuire v. ReconTrust, Co., No. 2:11-CV-02787 KJM 

CKD, 2014 WL 2118231 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2014) ("Bank of America associated on June 13, 

2005 and maintains its main office in Charlotte, North Carolina," and "is a citizen of North 

Carolina.") The court finds, therefore, that all parties to this action are citizens of different states 

and that complete diversity exists between the parties.

Plaintiffs also contend in their Motion for Remand that Defendants have not carried their 

burden of establishing the $75,000.00 amount in controversy necessary to support diversity 

subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs argue that the entire loan amount is not in controversy and 

that they are not seeking to invalidate a loan secured by a deed of trust. However, Plaintiffs allege 

as follows in their Complaint:

Plaintiff has, as a real, actual, and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, suffered actual 

and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of the 

jurisdictional amount, including the loss of the Property. As a direct and proximate cause 

of Plaintiff's detrimental reliance on the Defendants' promise, Plaintiff incurred substantial 

injury, including but not limited to the possible loss of the Subject Property because 

Defendants proceeded to initiate a wrongful non-judicial foreclosure on the Subject 

Property, the loss of a permanent modification, back dues and interest that has accrued to 

date, the reinstatement amount they paid which included late fees and interest, lost the 

opportunity to pursue other foreclosure options, the cost and expense of the instant pending 

litigation, and other actual and consequential damages that will be proven on the date of 

trial. 

Complaint, para. 41, Doc. 1-2, Exh. A.

The original Deed of Trust on the property was for $295,100. Complaint, Exh. A. The 

Notice of Trustee's sale indicates an "[e]stimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges" at

$530,685.96. Woods Decl., Exh. C, Doc. 1-2. The Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, dated April 3, 

2015, indicates that the amount of the unpaid debt was $463,873.80, and that the property sold for 

$186,204.73. Request for Judicial Notice, Doc. 23-1.1 As Defendants argue, the Complaint 

indicates that Plaintiffs challenge the arrearages. See, e.g., Complaint, Paragraphs 25-27, 72-3. 

Amount of indebtedness has been recognized as one of the ways to value foreclosure cases, 

the other being the fair market value of the property. Phat Ngoc Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

 

1 Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice filed April 13, 2015, is GRANTED.

Case 1:15-cv-01262-NJV Document 28 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

N.A., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 10280-29 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

2010 WL 2629785, *5–6 (N.D. Cal. 2010)). Here, Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing and 

National Default Servicing have presented evidence to the court that the amount in controversy is

in excess of $186,000.00 (the sales price of the house). Accordingly, the court finds that 

Defendants have carried their burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

amount in controversy in this action exceeds the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00. Having also 

found complete diversity between the parties, the court concludes that it has subject matter 

jurisdiction over this case based on diversity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-01262-NJV Document 28 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4