Removal to Federal Court LiftedCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 4, 2019UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 280 South lst Street San Jose, CA 951 13 www.cand.uscouns.gov Susan Y. Soong _ General Court Number Clerk ofCourt _ 408-535-5363 March 9, 2020 Santa Clara County Superior Court l9l N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 l3» RE: Armando N Alfaro, et al. v. ‘Real Time Resolutions l9-cv-06365-BLF Your Case Number: l9cv354490 Dear Clerk, Pursuant to an order remanding the above captioned case to your court, transmitted herewith are: E Certified original and one copy ofthis letter E Certified copy ofdockét entries Certified copy of Remand Order D Other I Please acknowledge receipt ofthe above documents on the attached copy ofthis letter.’ Sincerely, Susan Y. Soong, Clerk v lnstumentls‘amia andcbnadeopy ' a I 8 . ofthoodglnalonflle In:my office: ' ' ' rgm r by: Susie F. Barrera v ' - ,- Case Systems Administrator 'l demus. DIstrIét'Co‘Tm“! “ « 408-535-5382 ’ 1a: 132’ , ‘9‘ r 3,3 ,,“ g, r: V . 43:? W} k:2m ; Mg, v mmmommJ1 CANDLBC? F‘ Iof4 Alfaro v. Real Time Resolutions Assigned to: Judge Beth Labs‘on Freeman Referred to: Judge Nathanael M. Cou'sins Demand: $75,000,000 https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpI.pl?633787798644 l 03-L_l_0-l ADRMOP,CLOSED,ProSc U.s. District Court ’ California Northern District.(San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #2 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Internal Use Only Case in other court: Superior Court County of Santa Clara, l9- CV354490 Cause: 28: l44l Petition for Removal Plaintiff Armando N Alfaro Plaintiff Josephine Alfaro Individually and as_Husband and Wife. V. Defendant Real Time Resolutions a Nevada Corporation doing business in California and Does ] through 50, inclusive represented by represented by represented by Date Filed: |0/04/2019 Date Terminated: 03/06/2020 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit Jurisdiction: Diversity Armando N Alfaro 60l Calero Avenue San Jose, CA 95123 PRO SE Josephine Alfaro 601 Calero Avenue San Jose, CA 95 l 23 PRO SE Nathaniel R Luccy Ericksen Arbuthnot 210 North Fourth Street Suite 350 SJ, CA 95] 12 408-286-0880 Fax: 408-286-0337 Email: nlucey@ericksenarbuthnot.com ATTORNEY T0 BE NOTICED Date Filcd # Docket Text 10/04/20 1 9 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filingfee $400 receipt number 0971-13767290). Filed by REAL TIME RESOL UTIONS. (Attachments: # l Declaration # g Declaration 0F SAMUEL TRAKHTENBROlTin support thereof # Q Civil Cover Shee!)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed 0n 10/4/2019) Modified on 10/7/2019 (cv, COURTSTAFF). (Entered: 10/04/2019) 1 3/9/2020, 3:07 PM CAND-ECF F V https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p|?633787,798644 | 03-L_l_0-l l0/07/201 9 2 Case assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Counsel for plaintifTor the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assignedjudge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. _For information, visitl E-FilingA New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopenirig. Sta‘nding orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy ofthe initiating documents pursuant to LR. 5-l(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination ' due by I0/21/2019. (jIgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on [0/7/2019) (Entered: 10/07/20 I 9) ' 10/07/201 9 1 Initial Cése Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/1/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/8/2020 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019) (Entered: 10(07/2019) |0/2l/20 l 9 fl First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Fed. Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Real Time Resolutions. Motion Hearing set for I2/l 8/2019 01 :00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor before Judge Nathanael M. Cqusins. Responses due by 11/4/2019. Replies due by ll/lZ/20l9. (Attachments: # l MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)., # g REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE l2(b)(6). # 3 Proposed Order)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on 10/2l/20l9)(Entered. l0/2l/2019) l0/22/2019 ’ 5 CLERK‘S NOTICE REGARDING Consent or Declination: All paniés are requested to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistratejudge by >1 0/29/20l9. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistratejudge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: https/lcand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. (Attachments: #(l) Cenificate/Proofof Service) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on l0/22/2019). (Entered: 10/22/20l9) H/Ol/ZOI9 § CLERK'S NOTICE oflmpending Reassignmcnt to U.S. District Judge and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on ll/l/2019) (Entered: ll/Ol/2019) 11/01/2019 Z ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant t0 General Order N0. 44 to Judge Beth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand. uscourts.gov/cameras Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins remains as referral judge r assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk 0n 11/1/2019. (Attachments. # l Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(wa, COURT STAFF) (Filed 0n 11/1/2019) 2 of4 ' 3/9/2020, 3:07 PM CAND-ECF h https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?633787798644l03-L_l_0-l ' i (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/1/2019: # g Certificate/Proof of Service) (wa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: ll/01/2019) CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING MOTION HEARING AND CASE l MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AFTER REASSIGNMENT. fl First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintifls Complaint Pursuant to Fed. Rule ofCiviI Procedure 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2020 09:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by l/30/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/6/2020 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on ll/4/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on H/4/20l9: # l Certificate/Proofof Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 1 1/04/201 9) I 12/02/2019 9 MOTION to Remand; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Armando N Alfaro, Josephine Alfaro. Responses due by 12/]6/20I9. Replies due by 12/23/20I9. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on l2/2/2019) (Entered: l2/04/20 l 9) ' ‘ 12/04/2019 10 Renotice motion hearing DEFENDANT REAL TIME RESOL UTIONS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINTPURSUANT T0 FED. RULE 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b){6). filed byReal Time Resolutions. (Attachments: # l Certificate/Proofof Service Certificate of Service)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on I2/4/20 l 9) (Entered: l2/04/20 l 9) 12/05/2019 ll CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING MOTION HEARING‘as t0 2 MOTION to Remand. Motion Hearing set for 2/6/2020 09500 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor before Judge Beth Labson Freeman. ‘ (This is a texl-only entry generated by the court. There is no document assdciated with this entry.) _ (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2019) (Entered: 12/05/20|9) 12/] 7/2019 12 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 2 MOTION to Remand ) filed byReal Time Resolutions. (Attachments: # l Cenifigate/Proofof Service Certificate'of Service) (Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on 12/17/20l9) (Entered: 12/1 7/2019) Ol/2 1/2020 13 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Cenification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. The parties and counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements ofADR L.R. 3-5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2020) (Entered: 01/21/2020) Ol/24/2020 l4 OPPOSITION (re fl First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant (0 ' Fed. Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) ) filed by Armando N AlfaroxJosephine Alfaro. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed 0n l/24/2020) (Entered: 01/29/2020) l l/04/20 l 9 loo 01/29/2020 15 Certificate of Interested Entities by Real Time Resolutions identifying Corporate Parent Real Time Group, Inc. for Real Time Resolutions. (Attachments: # i Certificate/Proofof Service)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on l/29/2020) (Entered: 01/29/2020) Ol/29/2020 l6 ADR Certification (ADR LJR. 3-5 b) ofdiscussion ofADR options (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proofof Service Certificate of Service)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on 1/29/2020) (Entered: 01/29/2020) 30H 3/9/2020, 3:07 PM CAND-ECF 5‘ https://ecf.cand.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DklRpt.pl?633787798644 l O3-L_l_0-l 01/29/2020 l7 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and [PROPOSED] Order filed by Real Time Resolutions. (Attachments: # _l_ Certificate/Proofof Service Certificate of Service)(Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed o'n l/29/2020) (Entered: Ol/29/2020) Ol/30/2020 l8 ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND VACATiNG FEBRUARY 6, 2020 HEARING. Signed by Judge'Beth Labson Freeman on 1/30/2020. (blflcZS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2020: # l Certificate/Proof 0f Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/30/2020) 01/3 l/2020 l9 ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/31/2020. (blflc28, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2020: # l Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/31/2020) 02/03/2020 H (Court only) Motion Hearings set fqr 2/6/2020 VACATED per (fl ) ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND VACATING FEBRUARY 6, 2020 HEARING; Case Management Conference Reset per ( fl) Hearing re Q ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/26/2020 ll:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 3/19/2020. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2020) (Entered: 02/04/2020) 02/1 3/2020 20 Supplemental Brief re 2 MOTION to Remand, l__8_ Order, DEFENDANTRTRS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 0N THEAMOUNTIN CONTROVERSYISSUE AS IT PERTAINS TO DIVERSITYJURISDICTION filed byReal Time Resolutions. (Attachments: # l Declaration DECLARATION OF SAMUEL TRAKHTENBROIT IN SUPPORT‘OF DEFENDANT RTRS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE AMOUNT TN CONTROVERSY ISSUE AS IT PERTAINS TO- DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, # _2_ Cenificate/ProofofService CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEXReIated document(s) 2 , _|§ ) (Lucey, Nathaniel) (Filed on 2/13/2020) (Entered: 02/13/2020) '- 03/02/2020 2| ORDER (l) GRANTING g-PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND AND (2) DENYING 3 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/2/2020. (blflCZS, COURT STAFF) (Filed 0n 3/2/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/372020: # l Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/02/2020) 03/06/2020 [a . (Court only) ”*Civil Case Terminated. (sbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2020) (Entered. 03/09/2020) z SUSANY. SOONG \ cm. u.s. nwapmnfl 4 0M 3/9/2020, 3:07 PM United States District Court Nonhern District of California Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 9 ARMANDO N. ALFARO, ct al., Case No. l9-cv-06365-BLF P'a'm'ffss ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ' MOTION T0 REMAND AND (2) V- DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION T0 DISMISS REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, [Rez ECF 4, 9] Defendant. Before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiffs Armando N. Alfaro and Josephine Alfaro’s Motion to Remand, ECF 9; and (2) Defendant Real Time Resolutions’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 4. On January 30, 2020, the Court vacated the hearing on these motions and requested supplemental briefing o'n whether the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was satisfied. ECF 18. Defendant Real Time Resolution (“Real Time”) submitted its supplemental brief on February l3, 2020. ECF 20. Plaintiffs Armando N. Alfaro and Josephine Alfaro (the “Alfaros”) did not submit a supplemental reply briefby the February 20, 2020 deadlihe. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand and DENIES the motion t0 dismiss. I. BACKGROUND ‘ The Alfaros, proceeding pro se, reside in Santa Clara County and have lived at 60| Calero Avgnue in San Jose, Califomia (the “Property”) since January 5, 2007, per a deed executed on December 15, I999. Not. ofRemoval, Decl. ofNathaniel R. Luccy (“Lucey Decl.”), Ex. A, Comp]. 1H] 1, 5. On or about August 4, 2006, the Alfaros refinanced the loan Io the Property with Countrywide Bank in the amount of$525,000 (the “Senior Lien”), which was recorded on August 24, 2006. Compl. 1] 6. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was the named United States District Court Northern District ofCalifomia l0 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 9 beneficiary acting as nominee under the trust deed. 'Compl. 1| 6. That same day, a second loan was prdvided by Countrywide Bank via a second deed oftrust (the “Junior Lien”) in the amount of $150,000. Compl. 11 l0. MERS was also the beneficiary and nominee for the Junior Lien. The Junior Lien was recorded August 24, 2006. Cofipl. 1] 10. I On or arbund July 28, 20l6, Real Time nbtified the Alfaros that the Junior Lien had been sold to RRA CP Opportunity Trust l or RRA CP Opportunity Trust I as t.rustee for a trust holding the Junior Lien and that Real Time would be the servicer ofthe Junior Lien. C0mp|.1] l4. The notice did not name the seller ofthe Junior Lien‘or the trust that actually owned the Junior Lien. 'Compl. 1H] 14-15. The Alfaros allege that no assignment or other documents were recorded with the County Recorder’s Office to show that the Junior Lien was sold to RRA CP Opportunity Trust l as trustée to a moi’tgage trust or that any transfer occurred. Complfl l6. The Alfaros further allege that they were not informed in writing by MERS, Countrywide Bank, Bank of America, or Nationstar that the Junior Lien would be serviced by Real Time. Compl. 1] I3. The Alfaros filed the instant complaint against Real Time in the Superior Coun ofSanta Clara County on September 4, 2019. See generally Compl. Real Time removed the Complaint to federal court on October 4, 20l9. Not. of Remova!, ECF l. The Alfaros allege that Real Time is attempting to collect on the Junior Lien and that from August 24, 2006, to the present, “there ha[ve] been no legal transfers via [a]ssignments filed and recorded with the County Recor‘der’s Office from either MERS or Countrywide that conveys the [Junior Lien] to Defendant.” Compl. 1H] l l-l2. The Alfaros “allege that absent recorded [a]ssignments with the county recorder’s office, [Real Timej has no claim against the Plaintiffs’ property as either a servicer, beneficiary 0r owner ofthe debt and has no right to collect the debt.” Compl. 1] I7. ‘ Based on the above allegations, the Alfaros bring three causes ofaction for: (l) violation. of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ I788, et seq; (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law of Caiifornia, Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (3) fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Compl.}fil 18-40. The Alfaros seek “general and special damages in an amount according to prooffit trial”; “punitive and exemplary damages in an amount n. u appropriate to punish Defendant and deter others from engaging in similar cofiduct , a finding 2 United States District Court Nonhem District 0f California M&DJN OOOOVQ 1| 12 13 14 Is 16 I7 18 19‘ 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 9 ' and determination that Defendant herein, has no estate, right, title, lien or interest in said properties”; and “[flor immediate rescission of collection until Defendant produces legally verifiable evidence oftheir claims.” CompL at 9-10. II. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Remand The Alfaros move to remand tlvle case because the Complaint “Seeks relief exclusively under state law and there are no federal defenses to support removal jurisdiction.” Mot. to Remand at 5, ECF 9. Real Time opposes, arguing that the Cburt haéjurisdiction over this case based 0n diversity ofcitizenship and amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § I332. Opp. to Mot. to Remand (“Opp”) at 4, ECF 12. 1. Legal standard “A defendant generally may remove an action filed in state court ifa federal district court would have had originaljurisdiction over the action.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & C0., 888 F.3d 413, 4l5 (9th Cir. 201 8) (citing 28 U.S.C. § l44l(a)). Courts “strictly construe the removal statue against removal jurisdiction" and “[flederal jurisdiction must be rejected iflhere is any doubt as to the right ofremoval in the first instance.” Gaus v‘ Miles, Ina, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).' I _ The only jurisdictional basis alleged here is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § I332, see Opp. 4; Not. of Removal 1] 3, “whichrequires complete diversity among the parties and an ’ amount in controversy in excess of$75,000.” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 415. “Where, as >here, it is unclear from the face ofthc complaint whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance ofthe evidenée, that the amount in controversy exceeds thejurisdictional threshold.” 1d. at 416. The Ninth Ciréuit “define[§] the amount in controversy as the amount at stake in the underlying litigation,” which “includes, inter alia, ldamages (compensatory, punitive, or otherwise) afid the cost ofcomplying with an injunction, as well as attorneys’ fees awarded under fee shifting statutes.” Gonzales v. CarMaxAuto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Corral v. 3 United States District Court Northem District ofCalifomia Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 0f 9 Select Portfolio Servicing, Ina, 878 F.3d 770, 774 (9th Cir. 201 7)“ “In assessing the amount in controversy, we may consider allegations in the complaint and in the notice of removal,‘as well as summary-judgment-type evidence relevant t0 the amount in controversy.” Chavez, 888 F.3d at 41 6. 2. Discussion It is not clear from the face ofthe Complaint whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as the Complaint only requests damages (without specifying an amount), a finding and determination that Real Time “has no estate, right, title, lien or interest in [the Property],” and “[f]or immediate rescission ofco'llection until Defendant produces legally verifiable evidence of their claims.” Compl. at 9-10. Real Time, therefore, must establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Chavez, 888 F.3d at 4| 5; Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., I l6 F.3d 373, 3-76 (9th Cir. I997) (“Where the complaint does not demand a dollar amount, the removing defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance ofevidence that the amount in controversy exceeds [thejurisdictional threshold].”). +he Court 7 addresses, in turn, whether Real Time has met its burden ofestablishing that the value ofthe injunctivc reliefand damages exceed $75,000. a. Value ofinjunctive relief In its Notice of Removal, Real Time asserted that, “[b]ased upon the amount ofthe subject loan at issue ($1 50,000.00), and the prayer for reliefin plaintiffs’ Complaint," plaintiffs are seeking in excess of$75,000.00 in damages.” Not. of Removal fil‘ l. ln its supplemental brief, Real Time adds that the amount in controversy “clearly exceeds $75,000” because “Plaintiffs contend that [Real Time] has no right to collect the debt in the amount of$150,000.” Def. Supp. Br. 3, ECF 20. Real Tim'e only provides evidence as to the amount ofthe Junior Lien. See Not. of Removal 1| l; Lucey Decl. 1] 6. “In actions Seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value ofthe object ofthe litigation.” Corral, 878 F.3d at 775. For example, “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks to quiet title to a property or permanently enjoin foreclosure, the object ofthe litigation is the ownership ofthe property” and “the value ofthe property or the 4 United States District Court Nonhem District of California l0 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 5 of 9 amount of indebtedness on the property is a proper measure ofthe amount in controversy.” Id. at 776. Thus, when “the object ofthe litigation is only a temporary injunction while [a defendant] n n: considers [a plaintiff‘s] loan modification application, the amount in controversy in such cases does not equal the value ofthe property or amount of indebtedness." Id. Rather, the amount in controversy is the cost lo the lender, or benefit to the borrower, in the lempdrary delay. Id. Heré, Real Time argues that the object ofthe litigation is the Junior Lien because “[t]he complaint arises out of plaintiffs’ default ofa second mortgage on their home.” Not. of Removal; 1] I;See Lucey Decl. 11 6. The Court disagrees. In addition to damages, the Alfaros seek (1) “a finding and determination that Defendant herein, has no estate, right, title, lien or interest in said properties” (the “Finding and Detem1ination”); and (2) “[flor immediate rescission 0f collection Huntil Defendant produces legally verifiable evidence oftheir claims” (the “Rescission”). Compl. at 9-l0. The Alfaros, however, afe not seeking the Property free and clear ofthe Junior Lien, and Real Time does not provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, as in Corral, the Alfaros are not seeking to quiet title or otherwise invalidate the underlying loan. Therefore, to satisfy its burden ofestablishing the amount in controversy related to the complaint, Real Time must establish, by a preponderance ofevidence, that the benefit ofthe Finding and Determination and/or the Rescission to the Alfaros, or the cost ofthe Finding and Determination and/or the Rescission to Real Time, exceeds $75,000. Corral, 878 F.3d at 775 (analyzing benefit t0 plaintiffand cost to defendant to determine amount in controversy). Real Time has not met its burden ofdemonstrating that the value ofthe Rescission exceeds $75,000. The Rescission seeks only to prevent Real Time from collecting payments on the Junior Lien until Real Time can prove that it is the rightful scrvicer ofthe Junior Lien. The Rescission does not entitle the Alfaros to cease payment on the Junior Lien or prevent‘Real Time from collecting payments on the Junior Lien in the future. The length ofthe Rescission would likely be minimal, and in any event would primarily be‘in Real Time’s control. The only pecuniary harm to Real Ti'me would be the cost ofhaving to put forth such evidence and the temporary delay in collecting payments, and the only benefit to the Alfaros would be derived from the temporary stop in collection from Real Time because the Rescission would not relieve the Alfaros oftheir burden 5 United States District Court Northern District ofCalifomia Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 6 of 9 V , ofpaying the Junior Lien. See Miller v. LoanCare, LLC, No. 3:]9-CV-00274-TMB,.2020 WL |84443, at *4 (D. Alaska Jan. l3, 2020) (“IfPlaintiffs succeed, they woulld still be obligated to repay their debts. As such, the pecuniary harm that wéuld be suffered by Defendants does not equal either the full amount of indebtedness or full value ofthe property sold.”); Brown v. chen Loan Servicing, LLC, 798 F. Supp. 2d I288, 1290 (M.D. Ala. 201 l) (finding value ofinterim injunctive relief was value ofdelay in Foreclosure, nbt value of property). Real Time, however, has not put forth any evidence to demonstrate “the transactional cbsts to the lender of delaying [collection]” or the value ofthe temporary delay in payment ofthe loan. Corral, 878 F.3d at 776 (“Parties seekihg to establish diversity jurisdiction over such cases may still demonstrate that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied using other measures, such as the transactional costs to the lender of delaying foreclosure or a fair rental value ofthe property during the pendency ofthe injunction”). Therefore, Real Time has not met'its burden of demonstrating that the value ofthe Rescission exceeds $75,000 because Real Time has not shown that the value of the Res_cission equals the amount ofthe Junior Lien. Similarly, Real Time also fails to demonstrate that the value ofthe Finding and Determination equals the amount ofthe Junior Lien and thus exceeds $75,000. See Greene v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. |8-CV-06689-JSC, 2019 WL I331027, at *4 (ND. Cal. Mar. 25, 20l9) (finding request for “injunction preventing Defendants . . . from seeking to evict Plaintiff until Elaims herein are resolved” similar to reliefrequcsted in Corral). Any pecuniary gain to the Alfaros would not be the Amount ofthe JunioyLien because they would still be required to pay the loan. Moreover, any pecuniary cost to Real Time Would also not be in the amount ofthe Junior Li'en because Real Time is only the servicer ofthe Junior Lien - not the owner ofthc lien or mortgage on thé Property. See Lucey Decl. 1] 6 (stating that Real Time has the servicing rights on the loan, Countrywide Bank is the lender, and MERS is the beneficiary and nominee for Countrywide Bank); Not. of Removal1] l; Def. Supp. Br. 2. Ifthe Alfaros succeed, they would not win the value ofthe Junior Lien or Property. See Hernandez v. US Bank, NA, 318 F. Supp. 3d 558, 561 (D.R.l.‘2018) (finding amount in controversy not equal to loan where object 0f litigation was plaintiff‘s equitable title to property because “value ofthe mortgage and that ofthe 6. United States District Court ‘ Northem District of Califomia l0 H Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 7 bf 9 Property are not what Plaintiffs would win iftheir lawsuit were to succeed”). Therefore, Real Time has not met its burden ofdemonstrating that thé value ofthc Findihg and Determination exceeds $75,000 because Real Time has not shown that the value ofthe Finding and Determination equals the amount ofthe Junior Lien. Real Time attempts to distinguish~the present case from Corra.l by arguing that the Alfaros “scek[] a ruling that would prohibit [Real Time] from ever being able to collect payments on the [Junior Lien] and therefore, the unpaid balance ofthe loan is the correct amount in controversy.” Def. Supp. Br. 3 n.2. This is not so. As stated above, and as Real Time notes, it is only the servicer ofthe Junior Lien and a Favorable ruling would only prevent it from collecting payments on the Junior Lien because Real Time is not the owner ofthe lien or mortgage on the Property. Any cost to Real Time, therefore, would not be in the amount ofthe Junior Lien, and an); benefit from a favorable ruling for the'Alfaros would not be the value ofthe Junior Lien'or Property because they would still be obligated to make payments on the Junior Lien. Accordingly, Real Time has not provided evidence that it is more likely than not that the value ofthe injunctive réliefis more than $75,000. b. Value ofdamages The Alfaros request the following damages: (l) “all civil damagés and penalties . . . , including but not limited to actual damages, costs, and legal fees” for Real Time’s violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ I788 et seq.; and (2) actual and punitive damages, Fees, costs, and attorneys’ fees for Real Time’s fraud and misrepresentation. Complfifil 21, 39-40. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege their damages include “the loss Ofequity in their House, loan payments falsely represented, unexplained growth in their loan balances, costs and expenses related to protected themselves, reduced credit scores, unavailability ofcredit, increases costs ofcredit, redficed availability ofgoods and-services tied to credit ratings, [and] increasing costs 'ofthose services.” Comp]. fl 39. Real Time argues that these damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees should be included in the calculated ofthc amount in controversy. Def. Supp. Br. 3-4. ‘ Neither the Complaint nor the prayer for relief aHeges a specific amount ofdamagcs. See 7 United States District Court Northern District ofCalifornia \l Case 5:19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20. Page 8 of 9 generally Compl. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a prepondefance ofthe evidence, that the amount in controversy meets thejurisdiclional thresholdf’ Corral, 878 F.3d at 774 (emphasis added) (quoting Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 3 | 9 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under this burden, the defendant must provide evidence establishing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds that amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). Real Time has not met ifs burden as it simply concludes that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Def. Supp. Br. 2-4. Although the Alfaros pray for “general and special damages in an amount according to proofat trial,” see Compl. at 9, the removal petition and Real Time’s supplemental brief fail to prove by a'preponderance ofevidence that the amount in controversy meets thejurisdictional threshold, see generally Not. ofRemoval; Indeed, Real Time provides no analysis as to the calculation ofdamages and Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se thus no attorneys’ fees would be due, and its Civil Cover Sheet anached to its Notice ofRemoval states that the demand is for only $75,000, see ECF l-3, which is insufficient to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs”). Aécordingly, Real Time has not met its bu'rden of providing evidence that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., |02 F.3d 398, 406 (9th Cir. I996) (remanding case where defendant failed to establish amount in controversy exéceded jurisdictional threshold by preponderance ofevidence); Alan v. Austin Capital Bank, SSB, No. CV l9-96l 8 PA (AFMX), 2019 WL 6002406, at *3 (CD. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) (same); Adams v. Axiom Bank, No. SACV16301JLSASX, 2016 WL l642567, at *3 (CD. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016) (granting motion to remand because defendant failed‘to meet burden where it “provide[d] no evidence to show that the actual damages suffered or the recoverable fees incurred by [plaintiff] exceed $75,000”). The Court, therefore, GRANTS the motion t0 remand. United States District Court Northem District ofCalifomia Q ll 12 l3 14 15 l6 I7 18 l9 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 J Case 5:-19-cv-06365-BLF Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 9 of 9 B. Motion to Dismiss Real Time filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. ECF 4. Because the Court grants the 'Alfaros’ motion to remand, the Court DENIES Real Time’s motion to dismiss, withdut prejudice to Real Time re-filing in state court. ‘ III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Real Time’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk shall REMAND this case to Santa Clara Superior Court. All other matters are TERMINATED and VACATED, and the Clerk shall close this file. 1T is so ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2020 . W £2 @fl/ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
