Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01113/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andy B. Oraha, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Metrocities Mortgage, LLC., a California

limited liability company; U.S. Bank,

National Association, as Successor Trustee

to Bank of America, National Association

(successor) by merger to LaSalle Bank

National Association, as Trustee for

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust

2007-1XS; Mortgage Electronic

Registration System, a corporation;

America’s Servicing Company, a

corporation; Wells Fargo Home

Improvement, a corporation; Wells Fargo

Home Mortgage, a corporation; Black

Corporation I-X; John Doe I-X and Jane

Doe I-X, their spouses, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1113-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Andy B. Oraha’s Objection to Removal and

Motion to Remand. Doc. 11. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (erroneously sued as

America’s Servicing Company, Wells Fargo Home Improvement and Wells Fargo Home

Mortgage) and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee for the Morgan Stanley Loan Trust

2007-1XS, filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. Doc. 13.

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 20 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiff claimed he would have served Prospect Mortgage “by the time that the

court reaches this motion for a ruling” (Doc. 12 at 2), however, he has not done so. The

consent of unserved defendants is not needed for removal. Rhoads v. Washington Mut. Bank,

F.A., No. CV-09-08229, 2010 WL 2691560, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010).

- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2011, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank National Association (collectively, “Defendants”), filed

a Notice of Removal of the state court civil action filed by Plaintiff. Doc. 1. Defendants

assert that their removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b), and that this Court is the

appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Id. at ¶¶ 3,4. Defendants also contend

that this Court has original jurisdiction over this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Id. at ¶ 5. According to the Notice of Removal, the parties are diverse, and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Id. In addition to establishing

grounds for removal, Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s joinder of Metrocities Mortgage LLC

(now known as Prospect Mortgage LLC) was fraudulent. Id. at ¶ 9. According to

Defendants, because Prospect Mortgage’s joinder was fraudulent, Prospect Mortgage’s

“citizenship should therefore be disregarded for purposes of removal.” Id.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Notice of Removal are as follows: (1) the joinder of

Prospect Mortgage was not fraudulent; (2) Plaintiff is in the process of serving Prospect

Mortgage;1

 and (3) Plaintiff will also serve Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust, which will

destroy diversity of citizenship because “it is highly likely that some of the beneficiaries of

that trust are residents of Arizona.” Doc. 11 at 3. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00,

exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Diversity jurisdiction is not discretionary. See First State Ins. Co. v. Callan Assoc.,

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 20 Filed 09/08/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Inc., 113 F.3d 161, 162 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he obligation to exercise jurisdiction is ‘virtually

unflagging.’”) (quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800,

817 (1976)). Abstention by federal courts is the “exception rather than the rule.”

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Green v.

City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2001)).

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, provides, in pertinent part, “any civil action

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United States

for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). 

III. ANALYSIS

The dollar amount of Plaintiff’s action is not in dispute, so the only issue for the

Court’s consideration is diversity of citizenship. Because Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona

(Doc. 1 at ¶ 6), all defendants must be from a state other than Arizona for diversity to be

established. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff claims the following entities are defendants

or will be defendants: Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, MERS, Prospect Mortgage LLC, and

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust. The Court does not need to address whether Prospect

Mortgage LLC was fraudulently joined, or whether Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust

is a proper defendant, because assuming all of Plaintiff’s procedural actions were proper,

there is diversity of citizenship. Thus, Defendants were permitted to remove this action, and

remand would be improper.

Wells Fargo Bank and U.S. Bank are national banks, which means they are citizens

only of the states in which their main offices, as set forth in their articles of association, are

located. Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. §

1348). Wells Fargo’s main office is located in South Dakota, and U.S. Bank’s main office

is located in Minnesota. Doc. 1 at ¶ 7. Accordingly, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank are diverse.

 A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state

where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). MERS is incorporated in

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 20 Filed 09/08/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia (Doc. 1 at ¶ 8), which means MERS

is also a diverse party. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

 “[L]imited liability companies are citizens of every state of which any member is a

citizen.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006).

The General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Prospect Mortgage LLC declared the

following:

Prospect Mortgage, LLC is a limited liability company with two members: (1)

Prospect Mortgage Services Corp. and (2) Prospect Holding Company, LLC.

Prospect Mortgage Services Corp. is a California corporation with its principal

place of business in California. Prospect Holding Company, LLC is a limited

liability company with one member: Sterling PMC Inc. Sterling PMC Inc. is

a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.

Doc. 15-1, Ex. A ¶¶ 4-7. None of Prospect Mortgage’s members are citizens of Arizona.

Therefore if properly joined, Prospect Mortgage LLC would be a diverse party. 

The final entity that Plaintiff claims is a defendant is Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan

Trust. “A trust has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees.” Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899.

Contrary to the contention in Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, it is irrelevant for purposes of

determining diversity jurisdiction where a trust’s beneficiaries reside. See id. Plaintiff pled

in the Complaint that U.S Bank is the trustee of the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust.

As already determined, U.S. Bank is a citizen of Minnesota. Therefore if properly joined,

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust would be a diverse party.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this action was properly removed, and the Court will

 exercise diversity jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 12) is

DENIED.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 20 Filed 09/08/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the pending Motions to

Dismiss (Docs. 9 and 16) within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file a response

within 14 days of this Order, then the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action with

prejudice, without further order of the Court, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply

with the Court’s orders.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 20 Filed 09/08/11 Page 5 of 5