Taylor v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 8 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Greenberry Bush Taylor, Jr. Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Remand is denied.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/17/2013. (cmj)

Download PDF
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT   FOR  THE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  ALABAMA   SOUTHERN  DIVISION     GREENBERRY  BUSH  TAYLOR,  JR.,   )     )   Plaintiff,     )   vs       )   CIVIL  ACTION  13-­‐0344-­‐KD-­‐M     )   OCWEN  LOAN  SERVICING,  LLC,  and     )   U.S.  BANK  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION,   )     )   Defendants.   )       ORDER       After  due  and  proper  consideration  of  the  issues  raised,  and  a  de  novo   determination  of  those  portions  of  the  Recommendation  to  which  objection  is  made,  the   Recommendation  of  the  Magistrate  Judge  made  under  28  U.S.C.  §  636(b)(1)(B)  is  adopted   as  the  opinion  of  this  Court.    Accordingly,  it  is  ORDERED  that  Plaintiff's  Motion  to  Remand   (Docs.  8-­‐9)  be  DENIED.     Plaintiff  Greenberry  Bush  Taylor,  Jr.,  objects  to  the  Court’s  jurisdiction  alleging  that   because  he  only  demanded  $70,000.00  in  Counts  3,  4,  and  5,  there  is  a  presumption  that  the   amount  in  controversy  for  federal  jurisdiction  is  lacking.    However,  as  explained  in  the   report  and  recommendation,  a  request  for  injunctive  relief  also  has  value.         Taylor  also  takes  issue  with  putting  any  value  on  his  request  for  injunctive  relief.    In   the  Complaint,  Taylor  requests  that  the  Court  enter  an  order  “prohibiting  the  defendants   from  initiating  foreclosure  proceedings  based  on  the  facts  alleged  herein.”    Taylor  argues   that  since  no  foreclosure  was  attempted,  this  request  has  no  value.    However,  the  issue  is   not  whether  a  foreclosure  was  cancelled  or  even  planned,  but  rather  the  issue  is  the  type  of   relief  requested.      The  simplistic  answer  is  that  if  the  request  is  to  temporarily  stop  an   identified  foreclosure,  then  ordinarily  the  value  of  the  house  or  mortgage  is  not  the   measuring  stick  to  determine  the  value  of  the  relief  requested.    However,  if  the  request  is  to   permanently  enjoin  an  identified  or  even  a  future  foreclosure,  the  whole  of  the  mortgage  or   the  value  of  the  house  becomes  the  value  of  the  relief  requested.    Contrary  to  Taylor’s   assertion,  the  complaint  clearly  requests  injunctive  relief  from  a  foreclosure  and,  while   fact-­‐specific,  this  relief  is  not  asserted  to  be  temporary.         DONE  this  the  17th  day  of  December  2013.       s/  Kristi  K.  DuBose   KRISTI  K.  DuBOSE   UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  JUDGE       2  

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?