Ramos v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-01433
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ramos v. U.S. Bank, Judge Chesney denied plaintiffs’ request to return their foreclosure case to state court, finding federal diversity jurisdiction and no Burford abstention.
The plaintiffs’ request to return the action to state court was denied, and the case remained in federal court against the named defendants. The order did not decide the underlying foreclosure-related claims.
What happened
In Ramos v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the plaintiffs asked the federal court to send their case back to state court. They argued that the parties were not completely diverse and that abstention—the decision to let state courts handle certain matters—was required.
The court found complete diversity because the plaintiffs were California citizens, while Select Portfolio Servicing was a Utah citizen and Chase and U.S. Bank were Ohio citizens. It also rejected the argument that Burford abstention applied to the plaintiffs’ claims involving title, foreclosure instruments, alleged harm to title, and the California Homeowners Bill of Rights.
Judge Chesney denied the plaintiffs’ motion for remand and vacated the scheduled hearing. The case was not sent back to state court; the court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · No. 3:20-cv-01433
- Maxine Chesney
- June 26, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs moved to remand, or return, the action to state court. They argued that the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction and that the court should abstain under the doctrine associated with Burford v. Sun Oil Co. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. opposed the motion, and the plaintiffs did not file a reply.
The plaintiffs asserted claims for quiet title, cancellation of instruments, slander of title, and violations of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. They sought damages and an injunction preventing the defendants from completing a nonjudicial foreclosure.
Diversity Jurisdiction
The court found that Chase had shown complete diversity of citizenship. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were citizens of California and that Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. was a citizen of Utah. It also found that Chase and U.S. Bank, N.A., both national banking associations, were citizens of Ohio because their main offices were located there for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.
The court therefore concluded that the case involved California citizens suing citizens of Utah and Ohio, establishing complete diversity among the parties. The court also stated that the citizenship of Clear Recon Corp., which was not a party, was irrelevant to this determination.
Abstention
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument for Burford abstention. It found that the action did not meet the requirements for abstention because the claims did not present the type of state-law issues requiring the federal court to defer to a specialized state judicial system or state policy effort. The court also noted that, even if abstention were appropriate, remand would not be proper because the plaintiffs sought damages; the cited authority allowed a federal court to stay damages actions based on abstention principles but did not authorize outright remand or dismissal of those actions on that basis.
Ruling
The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for remand and vacated the hearing scheduled for July 10, 2020. The court also GRANTED Chase’s unopposed request for judicial notice of specified public records. This order addressed whether the case should remain in federal court and did not resolve the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.