{"id":317,"date":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=317"},"modified":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","slug":"delomprey-phh-mortgage-cd-cal-grants-remand-state-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=317","title":{"rendered":"Delomprey v. PHH Mortgage Servicing \u2014 C.D. Cal. Grants Remand to State Court After Plaintiff Drops Federal Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Delomprey v. PHH Mortgage Servicing<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-02<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-09779<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; fraudulent joinder; remand; supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Eddie Delomprey originally sued PHH Mortgage Servicing, Western Progressive LLC, Premium Title of California, and U.S. Bank in Ventura County Superior Court over a foreclosure on his property. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction because the original complaint included federal causes of action. Once the case was in federal court, Delomprey amended his complaint to drop all the federal claims and sue only on state-law theories, including a slander-of-title claim against Premium Title.<\/p>\n

After amending, Delomprey moved to remand the case to state court and separately filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order to halt the foreclosure and any unlawful detainer (eviction) action while his motion was pending. The defendants opposed both motions and argued the federal court still had diversity jurisdiction because Premium Title \u2014 the only non-diverse (California) defendant \u2014 had been fraudulently joined to defeat removal.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Anne Hwang granted the motion to remand and denied the temporary restraining order as moot. The court held that the defendants had not carried the heavy burden required to show fraudulent joinder. Under Ninth Circuit law (Grancare, LLC v. Thrower), a defendant invoking diversity jurisdiction by claiming fraudulent joinder must show that the plaintiff has “no possibility” of stating a valid claim against the non-diverse defendant in state court \u2014 a much more demanding standard than a motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n

The court found that the amended complaint did assert a slander-of-title claim against Premium Title (along with the other “Foreclosing Defendants”) and that defendants’ argument that Premium Title “simply assisted with the delivery of a recorded document” was a barebones merits argument that did not foreclose any possibility of a claim. Because Premium Title was a properly joined non-diverse defendant, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction. With the federal claims gone and no diversity, the case was remanded to the Ventura County Superior Court and the TRO request was denied as moot.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n