Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01424/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01424-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

ELADIO S. ELEGINO JR.; NENITA T.

ELEGINO,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11 CV 1424 (MMA) NLS

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

TO STATE COURT FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION;

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 4]

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK; et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Eladio S. Elegino Jr. and Nenita T. Elegino initiated this action in the San Diego

Superior Court against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank and NDeX West alleging various state law

claims. [Doc. No. 1, Exh. A.] On June 28, 2011, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”)

removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. On November 28, 2011, the Court

concluded the record is incomplete with respect to Wells Fargo’s citizenship, and ordered Wells

Fargo to: (i) identify its principal place of business; and (ii) address how its principal place of

business affects diversity in this matter. [Doc. No. 11.]

On December 12, 2011, Defendant filed its response to the Court’s order to show cause.

[Doc. No. 14.] Defendant’s response, however, is largely non-responsive. First, Defendant does

not explicitly identify its principal place of business as ordered by the Court. Second, Defendant

- 1 - 11cv1424

Case 3:11-cv-01424-MMA-NLS Document 16 Filed 01/27/12 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

erroneously frames the question posed by the Court as “why Saberi, Mount, Firstar and Horton

should not be followed to find Wells Fargo a citizen of California based on where its principal

place of business (“PPB) [sic] is “located.” [Doc. No. 14, p.1.] In its November 28, 2011 Order to

Show Cause, the Court stated it “is persuaded by the rationale in Saberi.” [Doc. No. 11, p.6.] 

Under Saberi, Defendant’s principal place of business is critical to the Court’s diversity

jurisdiction analysis. Therefore, the Court instructed Defendant to provide the previously

undisclosed information. Defendant failed to do so. Instead, Defendant treated the Court’s Order

to Show Cause as an opportunity to argue why Saberi was wrongly decided. 

Defendant’s brief exceeds the scope of information sought by the Court’s Order to Show

Cause, and the Court declines to address the unsolicited arguments. The Court reiterates its

conclusion that Saberi was correctly decided, and incorporates by reference its analysis set forth in

the November 28 Order. In light of the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and the

requirement that any doubt as to the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand, the

Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the action must be remanded

to state court. See Guas v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, this result is

consistent with several recent opinions issued by the California district courts, including the

Southern District. See, e.g., Uriarte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127497

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011) (finding Wells Fargo is a citizen of California and remanding for lack of

diversity); Young v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7936 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23,

2012) (rejecting Wells Fargo’s argument that its citizenship is limited to South Dakota and

remanding for lack of diversity); Brew v. Wells Fargo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6796 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 20, 2012) (finding Wells Fargo is a citizen of California and remanding for lack of diversity).

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds and concludes that it does not have subject

matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss [Doc. 

No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT and the above captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior

Court for the County of San Diego, case no. 37-2011-00092579-CU-OR-CTL. 

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 11cv1424

Case 3:11-cv-01424-MMA-NLS Document 16 Filed 01/27/12 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

The Clerk of Court is instructed to return the case to the state court forthwith and to close this

action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv1424

Case 3:11-cv-01424-MMA-NLS Document 16 Filed 01/27/12 Page 3 of 3