MARCOS DANIEL SANCHEZ v. SYNCHRONY BANK N.A.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to remand a case removed from state court to federal court, where the plaintiff argued lack of diversity, insufficient amount in controversy, untimely removal, and statutory limitations on removal. The court denied the motion, finding that it possessed federal question jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's federal statutory claims, which rendered the diversity and amount in controversy arguments moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7.)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the presence of federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction that does not require diversity of citizenship or a minimum amount in controversy. Because the complaint contained counts based on federal statutes, the court's conclusion that the diversity and amount in controversy arguments were inapplicable is legally sound. The court also correctly noted that 12 U.S.C. § 94 does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction or limit removal rights in this context, and the removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the principle that federal question jurisdiction is independent of diversity requirements. The court properly cites binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority to support the proposition that no amount in controversy is required for § 1331 jurisdiction. The dismissal of the other grounds (timeliness, § 94) is also supported by the record and law cited.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS DANIEL SANCHEZ, Case No. 26-cv-03167-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 7) 14 SYNCHRONY BANK N.A., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Marcos Daniel Sanchez’s Motion to Remand. 18 (ECF No. 7.) 19 On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Synchrony Bank N.A. 20 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1-2.) On May 20, 21 2026, Defendant removed the case from the Superior Court of the State of California to 22 this Court. (ECF No. 1.) 23 Plaintiff moves for the Court to remand the present action to the Superior Court of 24 California, County of San Diego pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) on the following 25 purported grounds: (1) lack of federal diversity; (2) the amount of controversy does not 26 exceed $75,000; (3) Defendant’s Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1) was filed more than 30 27 days after service of the Complaint; (4) 12 U.S.C. § 94 imposes a limitation on Defendant’s 28 1 || ability to remove cases as a “federal savings association”; and (5) the Court lacks federal 2 || question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) 3 The Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction—since Plaintiff's complaint 4 ||asserts several causes of action under federal statutes and regulations (see ECF No. 1-2 5 ||(Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11)). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6 Since the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction, statutory requirements for 7 || federal diversity and amount in controversy do not need to be met. See, e.g., Clarke v. 8 || Upton, No. CVF-07-8880WW/SMS, 2007 WL 2875143, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2007) 9 || (‘Jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question does not require diversity of citizenship or 10 base amount in controversy”); Andrus v. Charlestone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604, 607 n. 11 ||6 (1978) (observing that the former version of the general federal question statute (28 12 ||}U.S.C. § 1331) was amended in 1976 to omit an amount in controversy requirement); 13. || Nakaranurack v. United States, 231 F.3d 568, 571 (9th Cir.2000) (observing that Congress 14 “eliminated the amount in controversy requirement for federal question cases’’). 15 Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Plaintiff timely removed the action within 30 16 || days of receiving Plaintiff's complaint in in the Superior Court of California, County of 17 ||San Diego. (See ECF No. 1 (Defendant removed the case on May 20, 2026 after personally 18 ||being served the complaint on April 20, 2026)); and 12 U.S.C. § 94 does not impose 19 restrictions upon covered entities’ procedural right to remove a case from state to federal 20 |} court. 21 Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7.) 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 ||DATED: July 6, 2026 (yi. Duhark 5 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 26 27 28