Lenau

Lenau v. Bank of America, N.A.

Good Law
131 F. Supp. 3d 1003·2015 WL 5522083·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123886
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 2015No. 2:15-cv-01374-GEB-EFBCalifornia1,660 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burrell, J.

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

This case will be remanded to the state court from which Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) removed it, since BAÑA has not established that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

BAÑA removéd this case from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, asserting in its Notice of Removal that the sole basis for removal is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C., § 1332 . (Notice of Removal (“NOR”) 1:24-28, 2:1-3, 3:18-22, EOF No. 1.) “Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 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) (per curiam).

“The court may — indeed must — remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079 , at *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.2003)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (“If at any time before fina] judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, tlie case shall…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.