Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00490/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00490-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSA LOYA,

Plaintiff,

v

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC et al,

Defendants. /

No C 10-0490 VRW

ORDER

On or about December 31, 2009, plaintiff commenced an

action in Contra Costa superior court entitled Rosa Loya v Aurora

Loan Services, LLC et al, C09-3669. On February 3, 2010, defendant

Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora”) removed the action to this

court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC

sections 1332, 1441 and 1446. Doc #1. Defendant Lenders

Processing Service (“LPS”) did not join Aurora’s notice of removal. 

Id. 

28 USC § 1446 describes the process for removing a case

from state to federal court: “A defendant * * * desiring to remove

any civil action * * * from a State court shall file * * * a notice

of removal * * * containing a short and plain statement of the

Case 3:10-cv-00490-VRW Document 18 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

grounds for removal.” The Ninth Circuit has interpreted section

1446 to mandate that all defendants join in removal. See, e g,

Hewitt v City of Stanton, 798 F2d 1230, 1233 (9th Cir 1986). 

There are, however, exceptions to this rule of unanimity. 

For instance, where a named defendant is nominal, unknown or

fraudulently joined, it need not join in its co-defendant’s

removal. Id; Emrich v Touche Ross & Co, 846 F2d 1190, 1193 n 1

(9th Cir 1988) (collecting cases). Likewise, where plaintiff fails

to serve a named defendant, that defendant need not join in its codefendant’s notice of removal. Salveson v Western States Bankcard

Ass'n, 731 F2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir 1984) superceded on other

grounds by Ethridge v Harbor House Rest, 861 F2d 1389 (9th Cir

1988). Thus, where a defendant seeks to file, under cover of a

rule of unanimity exception, a notice of removal in which all named

defendants have not joined, it must explain affirmatively the

absence of non-joining defendants. Prize Frize, Inc v Matrix Inc,

167 F3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir 1999) superseded by statute on other

grounds as stated in Abrego Abrego v Dow Chem Co, 443 F3d 676, 681

(9th Cir 2006); see also Northern Illinois Gas Co v Airco

Industrial Gases, 676 F2d 270, 273 (7th Cir 1982). 

In its notice of removal, Aurora alleges the following:

Counsel for Aurora has attempted to determine whether LPS has

been served and, if so, whether it consents to removal of this

action. Specifically, counsel called the general information

phone number of LPS, available on its website. We were

directed to the voicemail of Kimberly Reader, where we left a

message describing the lawsuit and requesting that someone

from LPS inform us whether it had been served and consented to

removal of the action. We also asked whether LPS had obtained

counsel. LPS has not appeared in the State Court Action. On

February 2, 2010, Ms Reader called back and stated that she

would speak to the senior litigation counsel in her office to

find out if LPS had received the lawsuit.

Case 3:10-cv-00490-VRW Document 18 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Doc #1 at 4. 

While Aurora’s notice of removal explains its initial

efforts to determine whether an exception to the rule of unanimity

exists in this case, it fails to allege that one of these

exceptions actually applies. In other words, Aurora has not

alleged that LPS has not been served, consents to removal or was

fraudulently joined in this action. Relaying as part of its notice

of removal Aurora’s failed efforts to secure joinder or to conclude

that an exception to the rule of unanimity applies does not explain

affirmatively the absence of non-joining defendants. Without a

clear allegation that LPS joins in removal or that an exception to

the rule of unanimity applies, Aurora’s notice of removal is

defective.

Furthermore, this defect in the removal notice was not

cured within the thirty-day statutory period permitted for joinder. 

See Cantrell v Great Republic Ins Co, 873 F2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir

1989). Accordingly, because the removal notice was facially

defective and the deficiencies uncured within the thirty-day

statutory period, removal was improper. The court therefore

REMANDS the above-captioned action to Contra Costa superior court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00490-VRW Document 18 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3