Opinion
For Don Ferrolino, an individual, Arlene Ferrolino, an individual, Plaintiffs: Joseph Richard Manning, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Joseph R Manning Jr APC, Newport Beach, CA.
For Capital One, N.A., a business entity form unknown, Defendant: William H Edmonson, Hunter R Eley, Doll Amir and Eley LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) -- RULING AND ORDER ON REMANDING OF CASE
The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On April 9, 2015, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling in this case, expressing doubts about whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over this action and concerning whether defendant Capital One, N.A. (" Defendant") had properly served its motion upon plaintiffs Don and Arlene Ferrolino (" Plaintiffs"). The Court allowed Defendant to file a supplemental brief based on the Court's concerns. That brief has been submitted ( see Docket No. 19) but it simply asserts that numerous courts have determined that the proper exercise of California's declaration of non-monetary status procedure, see Cal. Civ. Code § 2924l, transforms a trustee into a nominal party for purposes of ascertaining diversity citizenship.
The Court recognizes that numerous courts have reached that conclusion. However, this Court is not one of those courts, and Defendant has not cited the Court to any Ninth Circuit decision on that point. As a result, Defendant has not offered the Court anything on this issue that it is not already aware of; meaning that the Court will hold to the position it has taken thus far on the issue. Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated the existence of complete diversity in this action. The Court will therefore remand the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court forthwith, and need not discuss further the perceived problem with Defendant's service of its motion upon Plaintiffs.