Liu v. Bank of America, N.A.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05211
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Liu v. Bank of America, Judge White denied remand and striking, partly granted a continuance, and deferred dismissal to let the LLC join and obtain counsel.
Shin-Lin Liu, Bank of America, N.A., and Redwood 101 Investment LLC; the order required steps for the LLC to join or replace Liu as plaintiff and obtain counsel.
What happened
In Liu v. Bank of America, N.A., Shin-Lin Liu alleged that Bank of America improperly deducted money from an account belonging to Redwood 101 Investment LLC after Liu reported fraud. The bank removed the case from state court to federal court.
The court denied Liu’s request to send the case back to state court because the parties were completely diverse and the claimed damages exceeded the required amount. It also denied the bank’s motion to strike the complaint, granted Liu’s motion to continue in part, and deferred dismissing the complaint so the LLC could join the case or replace Liu as plaintiff and obtain a lawyer.
Judge Jeffrey S. White vacated the scheduled hearing and gave Liu until March 27, 2024, to allow the LLC to ratify, join, or be substituted into the case and obtain counsel.
The detailed version
- Liu v. Bank of America, N.A. · No. 4:23-cv-05211
- Jeffrey White
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
Shin-Lin Liu filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that Bank of America, N.A. improperly deducted funds from an account belonging to Redwood 101 Investment LLC after Liu reported fraud related to the transaction. Bank of America removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The court considered three motions: Liu’s motion to retain jurisdiction, which the court construed as a motion to remand; Bank of America’s motion to strike; and Liu’s motion to continue. The court resolved the motions without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for December 8, 2023.
Rulings
The court denied Liu’s motion to remand. It stated that the notice of removal showed that the parties were completely diverse and that Liu sought damages exceeding the amount-in-controversy requirement.
The court denied Bank of America’s motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Bank of America argued that the relief Liu sought was not legally recoverable and that the LLC was the real party in interest. The court held that a Rule 12(f) motion was not the proper procedure for arguing that damages were legally unavailable. However, the court agreed that the LLC was the real party in interest because, under California law, an LLC member or assignee has no interest in specific LLC property and members do not directly own the company’s assets.
The court granted, in part, Liu’s motion to continue. It deferred dismissing the complaint and gave Liu until March 27, 2024, for the LLC to ratify the action, join as plaintiff, or be substituted as plaintiff, and to obtain counsel for the LLC. The order does not specify which portion of the requested continuance was denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.