“Separate and apart from the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, 28 16 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 17 to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”
How later courts described this case
- “Separate and apart from the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, 28 16 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 17 to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 THE BANK OF NEW YORK Case No. 8:24-cv-01559-JWH-JDE
MELLON, f/k/a The Bank of New
12 York as Successor in Interest to
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as ORDER REGARDING
13 Trustee for Structured Asset PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
Mortgage Investments II Trust REMAND [ECF No. 10]
14 2006-AR7 Mortgage Passthrough
Certificates Series 2006-AR7,
15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
NITA CHIDESTER,
18 CYNTHIA CHIDESTER,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
19 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD,
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN Claiming
20 Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title,
Estate, Lien of Interest in the
21 Property Described in the
Complaint, Adverse to Plaintiffs
22 Title, or Any Cloud Upon Plaintiff,
and
23 DOES 1-50, inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
1 This particular action commenced when Defendants Cynthia and Nita
2 Chidester removed the case to this Court—for the second time—from Orange
3 County Superior Court.1 This Court previously remanded the action in the
4 related case, No. 8:23-cv-02281-JWH-JDE, on account of Cynthia Chidester’s
5 failure to pay the filing fee in a timely manner after the Court denied her request
6 to proceed in forma pauperis. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Chidester, 2024 WL
7 3498862 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2024). The Court also denied the Chidesters’
8 motion for reconsideration. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Chidester, 2024 WL
9 2498860 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2024).
10 Presently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Bank of New York
11 Mellon (“BONY”) to remand the action for a second time.2 BONY asserts,
12 among other arguments, that removal was improper pursuant to the “forum
13 defendant rule,” since both Cynthia and Nita Chidester are citizens of
14 California.3 See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.
15 2006) (“Separate and apart from the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, 28
16 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
17 to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”). The
18 Chidesters oppose BONY’s motion, but only on the basis that diversity
19 jurisdiction exists; the Chidesters do not dispute that they are citizens of
20 California and that, therefore, pursuant to the “forum defendant rule,” they
21 could not properly remove the action.4 And indeed, the Chidesters’ address,
22
23
24
25 1 See generally Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1].
26 2 Pl.’s Mot to Remand (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 10].
27 3 See generally id.
1|| listed on the caption page of each of their filings, is in Huntington Beach,
2|| California.
3 For those reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), this Court concludes
4|| that it lacks jurisdiction over this action and that remand is appropriate and
necessary.
6 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
7 1. BONY □□ instant Motion to remand [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED.
8 2. This action is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court.
9 3. The hearing set for September 20, 2024, is VACATED.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12|| Dated:_ September 16, 2024 VY Loe pm
13 GNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
> See, €.g., id. at 1.