Christopher Griffin, et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, et al
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judges and The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0910n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER A. GRIFFIN; LEONOR
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,
Dec 08, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; COLLIER, District Judge.
Christopher A. Griffin and Leonor Griffin, husband and wife, are
Michigan citizens. They appeal through counsel two district court orders, one denying their
motion to remand, and one dismissing their complaint challenging the mortgage foreclosure on
their former residence.
In 2006, the Griffins took out a mortgage loan from defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank in
the amount of $302,400 to purchase a home. They defaulted on the loan, and the property was
sold at a sheriff’s sale in 2011 to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac) for
$320,630.15. In 2012, the Griffins filed a complaint in Michigan state court alleging that
defendant violated Michigan foreclosure law and the Michigan Regulation of Collection
Practices Act. The Griffins also named an unknown trust and an unknown trustee as defendants,
The Honorable Curtis L. Collier, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
Griffin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al.
but those parties were never served. The defendant removed the case to the federal district court.
The Griffins moved to remand the case to the state court, but the district court denied the motion.
Defendant then moved for dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Griffins filed a response. The district court
granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Griffins argue that because
defendant did not attach the state court summons to the notice of removal, the district court erred
in denying their motion to remand. They also argue that the district court erred by dismissing
When removing an action from state court to federal court, a party must file a copy of all
process and pleadings they received in the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). However, the
failure to include all the pleadings and process is only a procedural defect; it is not jurisdictional.
Cook v. Randolph Cnty., Ga., 573 F.3d 1143, 1150 (11th Cir. 2009). The Griffins failed to allege
how they were prejudiced by the failure to include the summons with the notice of removal in
order to justify a remand. Thus, the district court did not err in denying their motion to remand.
The Griffins’ claim challenging the foreclosure was properly dismissed because the
redemption period had lapsed and the Griffins failed to make a showing of fraud or irregularity
to set aside the foreclosure. Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 714 F.3d 355, 359-60
(6th Cir. 2013). The Griffins point to only one alleged irregularity: that the mortgage was never
assigned to Freddie Mac. However, if it was defendant who foreclosed on the property, as they
alleged, there was no need for an assignment. Alternatively, if it was Freddie Mac who initiated
the foreclosure proceeding without an assignment of the mortgage, the Griffins would have to
sue that defendant and not the named defendant, who would not be responsible for recording the
assignment of the mortgage.
Griffin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al.
The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendant violated the Michigan
Regulation of Collection Practices Act, because the complaint contained only a recitation of the
elements of a cause of action under that Act, without any supporting facts to show that defendant
committed any violation, and therefore was insufficient to state a claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Finding no error in the denial of the motion to remand or the dismissal of the complaint
for failure to state a claim, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?