Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00011/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00011-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York
Plaintiff
Jamie R. Tarin
Defendant
Joe T. Tarin
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMIE R. TARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00011-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE; 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO REMAND

Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants Jamie R. 

Tarin and Joe T. Tarin in the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa. 

Defendants, representing themselves, subsequently purported to remove the action to this Court 

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction appearing on 

the face of the Complaint, the Court issued an Order for Defendants to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

why this case should not be remanded. (Dkt. No. 4.) Although ordered to respond to the OSC

by January 27, 2015, Defendants failed to do so.

While Defendants have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge, 

Plaintiff has neither consented to nor declined to proceed before the undersigned judge. The 

Clerk of the Court is accordingly ordered to reassign this action to a district court judge. For the 

reasons explained below, the Court recommends that this case be REMANDED. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bear the burden of 

establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute 

against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, 

when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself 

Case 3:15-cv-00011-VC Document 6 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 

(9th Cir. 2004). The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and has determined that subject 

matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Jurisdiction founded on diversity “requires that the parties be in complete diversity and the 

amount in controversy exceed $75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 

1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Complete diversity means that “each of the plaintiffs must be a 

citizen of a different state than each of the defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 

1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendants have not established that the parties are diverse or that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Instead, the face of the state court complaint states that 

the amount demanded is less than $25,000. (Dkt. No. 1, p. 8.) Further, even if these 

requirements were met, removal would still be improper because Defendants—all California 

residents—are precluded from removing an action where they are citizens of the state in which the 

action was brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court 

judge REMAND this action to Contra Costa County Superior Court. 

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the district court’s ultimate Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00011-VC Document 6 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 2