United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
MARTA D. LYALL, Plaintiff,
BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's (1) Notice (to
Remand) (“Motion to Remand”) and (2) Motion to
Strike and Motion to Renote and Request Hearing
(“Motion to Strike”). Dkts. #10 and #28.
Defendant First American Title Insurance Company
(“First American”) opposes the Motion to Remand.
Dkt. #25. Plaintiff has not responded to First American's
opposition, calling into question the strength of the
arguments laid forth in her Motion to Remand. See
LCR 7(b)(2) (“if a party fails to file papers in
opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the
court as an admission that the motion has merit”).
Rather, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Strike, seeking varied
relief from the Court. Dkt. #28. First American has
responded. Dkt. #31. For the following reasons, the Court
denies Plaintiff's Motions.
relevant background is limited and procedural in nature.
First American removed Plaintiff's state court action to
this Court on September 19, 2019. Dkt. #1. First American
removed the action based on the Court's diversity
jurisdiction. Id. at 2-5. Both Defendant Bank of
America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and Defendants
Rushmore Loan Management Services (“Rushmore”)
and U.S. Bank NA (“US Bank”) have filed motions
to dismiss which are not yet ready for consideration. Dkts.
#6 and #12. First American seeks to join in Bank of
America's motion to dismiss. Dkt. #14.
part, Plaintiff has filed what the Court construes as a
motion to remand. Dkt. #10. First American timely responded
to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Dkt. #25. Plaintiff did
not file a reply in support of her Motion to Remand and
instead filed her Motion to Strike. Dkt. #28. First American
likewise opposes the Motion to Strike and is joined by the
other Defendants. Dkts. #31, #34, and #35. On the noting date
of the Motion to Strike, Plaintiff filed a document captioned
as “Plaintiff's Request for the Court to Take
Judicial Notice of Substitution of John Doe Defendants. Dkt.
#37. Upon the Court's review, that filing does not appear
to be a substantive reply and the Court will not consider it
Plaintiff's Notice to Remand
does not establish any basis for remand in this case.
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand proceeds on
misunderstandings of the law and attempts to cast removal in
this case as improper. Contrary to the Motion to Remand, the
Court finds removal in accordance with the rules and does not
find a valid objection in Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand, and
any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in
favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas.
Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). The removing
party must carry the burden of establishing jurisdiction not
only at the time of removal, but also in opposition to a
motion for remand. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines,
Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).
Court's diversity jurisdiction is properly invoked for
“a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that
exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,
000.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
513 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332). For diversity
jurisdiction in a case involving multiple plaintiffs and
defendants, each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different
state than each defendant. Morris v. Princess Cruises,
Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001);
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 67 (1996).
Remand was Proper
legal or factual support,  Plaintiff contends that removal was
improper. But each of Plaintiff's unsupported objections
fail. Plaintiff believes that a motion should have been filed
in state court, that removal somehow altered the nature of
her case,  and that an upcoming hearing in state
court should have precluded removal. Dkt. #10 at 2. But,
Plaintiff's arguments are baseless and, as First American