Warner

Warner v. Select Portfolio Servicing

Good Law
193 F. Supp. 3d 1132·2016 WL 4492828·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83287
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 24, 2016Case No. SACV 16-0753 AG (RAOx)California2,245 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Guilford, J.

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiffs Sheila and Richard Warner sued two Defendants in California state court: Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series AEG 2006-HE1 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series AEG 2006-HE1 (“U.S. Bank”). The Warners asserted eight claims related to a home loan they got. SPS and U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court.

The Court REMANDS this case and VACATES all other pending matters.

1. LEGAL STANDARD

Before getting into an analysis of these facts, it’s important to understand subject matter jurisdiction generally and diversity jurisdiction specifically, as well as how the sham defendant doctrine fits into all this.

1.1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction Generally

The Constitution confines federal courts’ power to rule to certain subject matters. See "U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2. Courts themselves police their exercise of power. They take this sacred duty seriously and guard their limited jurisdiction jealously. See Abramson v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., 155 F.Supp.3d…

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.