1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE BANK OF NEW YORK Case No. 8:24-cv-01559-JWH-JDE MELLON, f/k/a The Bank of New 12 York as Successor in Interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as ORDER REGARDING 13 Trustee for Structured Asset PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO Mortgage Investments II Trust REMAND [ECF No. 10] 14 2006-AR7 Mortgage Passthrough Certificates Series 2006-AR7, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 NITA CHIDESTER, 18 CYNTHIA CHIDESTER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN Claiming 20 Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien of Interest in the 21 Property Described in the Complaint, Adverse to Plaintiffs 22 Title, or Any Cloud Upon Plaintiff, and 23 DOES 1-50, inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 1 This particular action commenced when Defendants Cynthia and Nita 2 Chidester removed the case to this Court—for the second time—from Orange 3 County Superior Court.1 This Court previously remanded the action in the 4 related case, No. 8:23-cv-02281-JWH-JDE, on account of Cynthia Chidester’s 5 failure to pay the filing fee in a timely manner after the Court denied her request 6 to proceed in forma pauperis. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Chidester,

3498862 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2024). The Court also denied the Chidesters’ 8 motion for reconsideration. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Chidester,

2498860 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2024). 10 Presently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Bank of New York 11 Mellon (“BONY”) to remand the action for a second time.2 BONY asserts, 12 among other arguments, that removal was improper pursuant to the “forum 13 defendant rule,” since both Cynthia and Nita Chidester are citizens of 14 California.3 See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 15 2006) (“Separate and apart from the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, 28

, § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 17 to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”). The 18 Chidesters oppose BONY’s motion, but only on the basis that diversity 19 jurisdiction exists; the Chidesters do not dispute that they are citizens of 20 California and that, therefore, pursuant to the “forum defendant rule,” they 21 could not properly remove the action.4 And indeed, the Chidesters’ address, 22 23 24

25 1 See generally Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 26 2 Pl.’s Mot to Remand (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 10]. 27 3 See generally id. 1|| listed on the caption page of each of their filings, is in Huntington Beach, 2|| California. 3 For those reasons, pursuant to

(b), this Court concludes 4|| that it lacks jurisdiction over this action and that remand is appropriate and necessary. 6 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 1. BONY □□ instant Motion to remand [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED. 8 2. This action is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. 9 3. The hearing set for September 20, 2024, is VACATED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12|| Dated:_ September 16, 2024 VY Loe pm 13 GNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 > See, €.g., id. at 1.