TUITAMA v. BANK FOR LEHMAN XS TRUST MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005 5N (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Felicia Tuitama and Liloi Tuitama appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Attorneys Tr. v. Videotape Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594 (9th Cir. 1996). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed the Tuitamas’ first amended complaint based on res judicata and failure to state a claim. However, the district court did not address the Tuitamas’ allegations that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the citizenship of defendants named in the first amended complaint. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”). We vacate and remand for the district court to address whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, and in doing so express no opinion as to whether any defendants were fraudulently joined after removal from state court. See Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (the citizenship of a fraudulently joined, non-diverse defendant is not considered for purposes of determining diversity).

VACATED and REMANDED.