Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Young et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This case is remanded to the state court. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 4/4/2013. (law)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Countrywide Home Loans,
Kelli-Ann Young, Donna
Case No. 2:13-cv-50
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Kelli-Ann Young, proceeding pro se, seeks to
remove a foreclosure action from state court.
the Court is Ms. Young’s motion for leave to proceed in
Because the affidavit in support of the
motion satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
However, for reasons set forth below, this case is REMANDED
to the state court.
On October 24, 2008, plaintiff Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. (“Countrywide”) filed a Complaint for Foreclosure in
Windham Superior Court.
The Complaint pertains to real
property purchased by Ms. Young in 2001.
The property is
located at 222 Valley View Road in Dover, Vermont.
On March 27, 2013, Ms. Young filed a Notice of Removal
in this Court, together with her motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
The Notice states that removal is sought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and includes a copy of the
Complaint for Foreclosure.
The Notice includes no other
factual statements, legal citations, or state court
The federal removal statute permits a state court
defendant to remove to federal court “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction.”
28 U.S.C. §
The original jurisdiction of federal courts is
See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200,
As a consequence, “removal jurisdiction exists
in a given case only when that jurisdiction is expressly
conferred on the courts by Congress.”
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyco
Int’l Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 2d 357, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
The federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), requires that
the removing party “shall file in the district court of the United
States . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon
such defendant or defendants in such action.” Although Ms. Young’s
filing may not strictly comply with the statute, the Court is not
remanding on that basis.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available when a
“federal question” is presented, or when plaintiffs and
defendants are citizens of different states and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
Although the removal statute provides “the procedural
mechanism for transferring a case from one court to another,
. . . the removal statute [itself] is not the source of
subject matter jurisdiction.”
Orange County Water Dist. v.
Unocal Corp., 584 F.3d 43, 49 (2d Cir. 2009).
federal subject matter jurisdiction may not arise out of a
defendant’s defense or counterclaim, whether actual or
anticipated, and is instead based solely upon the
See New York v. Shinnecock Indian
Nation, 686 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2012).
Here, Countrywide’s foreclosure complaint does not cite
any provision of federal law, nor does it suggest any form
of federal cause of action.
Indeed, the state court
proceeding against Ms. Young appears to be a standard
foreclosure action based entirely upon state law.
Consequently, there is no basis for federal question
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
As this case does not arise under federal law, the
Court must consider diversity jurisdiction.
§§ 1332(a), 1441(b).
See 28 U.S.C.
The removal statute allows for removal
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction only if none of the
defendants “is a citizen of the State in which such action
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
According to the
submissions before the Court, Ms. Young is a resident of
West Dover, Vermont.
Because she is a Vermont resident
seeking to remove a case to the federal court in Vermont,
she cannot avail herself of the removal provision in §
See Gardner and Florence Call Cowles Found. v.
Empire Inc., 754 F.2d 478, 480-81 (2d Cir. 1985).
The Court therefore finds that there is no valid basis
upon which this case may be removed from state court.
Pursuant to the removal statute, a removed case must be
remanded “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
This matter is therefore REMANDED to
the state court.
For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Young’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is GRANTED, and
this case is REMANDED to the Vermont Superior Court, Windham
Unit, Civil Division.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
4th day of April, 2013.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
Judge, United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.