Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02573/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02573-1/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

- 1 - 10cv2573

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA LASTRA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2573-LAB (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO DEEM NOTICE

OF REMOVAL AMENDED; AND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS;

ORDER RE: RELATED CASE

vs.

PHH MORTGAGE CORP F/K/A

CENDANT MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

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

citing diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal alleged PHH’s state of incorporation but

not its principal place of business, and alleged Lastra’s state of residence (California) rather

than her citizenship. Lastra moved for remand, citing the lack of a federal question but not

addressing diversity. Goff sought leave to amend the notice of removal to include PHH’s

principal place of business. Defendants also moved for judgment on the pleadings, and

Lastra didn’t oppose this motion.

On February 28, the Court issued an order deeming the notice of removal amended

to include PHH’s principal place of business, and denying Lastra’s motion for remand without

prejudice. That order pointed out Goff hadn’t formally alleged Lastra was a California citizen,

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 19 Filed 03/02/11 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 Goff was not named as a Defendant until December 7, 2010, when Lastra amended 1

her complaint. He removed this action on December 15.

- 2 - 10cv2573

only that she was a California resident, though it appeared she herself had alleged facts

showing she was also a California citizen. The Court therefore gave Defendants leave to

move ex parte to deem the notice of removal amended to include an allegation that Lastra

is a California citizen. The motion for remand was denied without prejudice, with the caveat

that if Defendants failed to promptly allege Lastra’s citizenship as formally required, the

Court would reconsider its order denying remand.

I. Amendment of Notice of Removal

The notice of removal suffered from formal pleading defects, but it is evident the

parties are all diverse and the amount in controversy is met for the Court’s exercise of

diversity jurisdiction. Removal was timely, because Goff removed within 30 days of being

served with the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 1

956 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a defendant may remove an action 30 days after being

served with the complaint, without regard to when other defendants were served). The

notice of removal is therefore DEEMED AMENDED to allege that Lastra is a citizen (not

merely a resident) of California. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT

because it is not necessary at this stage to offer proof of the uncontested issue of Lastra’s

citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

As noted, Lastra never opposed Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), failure to file an opposition to a motion when required to

do so can constitute consent to the granting of that motion. Furthermore, the motion is well

taken because the complaint is a form complaint devoid of the type of allegations required

in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED and the complaint

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Lastra may, if she wishes, file an amended

complaint no later than the close of business on Friday, April 1, 2011. She is directed to

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 19 Filed 03/02/11 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

review the applicable rules, particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9, and 10, and Civil Local Rule 5.1

particularly before amending.

III. Related Case

On December 15, 2010, Defendants filed a notice of related case, identifying reasons

why they thought this case was related to Lastra v. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al., 10cv2571-

JLS (NLS). Based on the current non-specific complaint, the Court cannot evaluate whether

the two cases are related. If Lastra files an amended complaint, the Clerk is directed to

generate and forward a low-number order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02573-LAB-BLM Document 19 Filed 03/02/11 Page 3 of 3