Hope v. U.S. Bank NA et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 10 plaintiff's objection to removal to federal court; granting 11 defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's Motion to Amend the notice of removal; and granting 15 defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's Motion to Dismiss. The action is dismissed against all defendants and the Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 4/16/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
U.S. Bank NA, as successor in interest to)
Bank of America NA; JPMorgan Chase)
Bank NA; California Reconveyance)
Company; Deborah Brignac; John Doe)
)
Brignac,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Sandra J. Hope,

CV 12-00297-PHX-FJM
ORDER

17
The court has before it plaintiff's motion for remand (titled "objection to removal to
18
federal court") (doc. 10) and defendants California Reconveyance Company ("CRC"),
19
JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's response and motion for leave to amend the notice of
20
removal (doc. 11). Plaintiff did not reply, and the time for replying has expired. We also
21
have defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss (doc. 15), which
22
defendant Brignac joined (doc. 16). Plaintiff did not respond, and the time for responding
23
has expired.
24
I
25
In 2006, plaintiff refinanced her Arizona home by executing a Deed of Trust for
26
$536,800. Plaintiff initiated this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa
27
County, challenging defendants' non-judicial foreclosure of her home. The complaint alleges
28

1

claims for (1) declaratory judgment; (2) breach of contract; (3) fraud; and (4) wrongful

2

foreclosure.

3

II

4

Plaintiff moves for remand to state court, arguing that defendants have offered no

5

proof of their own citizenship or proved that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

6

Thus, plaintiff argues defendants have not met their burden to prove that diversity

7

jurisdiction is proper.

8

Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity between plaintiff and

9

defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). It is

10

undisputed that plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona. Defendants allege that JPMorgan Chase is

11

a national banking association with its main office in Ohio, and that U.S. Bank (successor

12

in interest to Bank of America) is a national banking association with its main office in

13

Ohio.1 A national banking association is a citizen of the state where its main office is

14

located. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318, 126 S. Ct. 941, 952 (2006).

15

Thus, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank are citizens of Ohio. Next, defendants allege that

16

CRC is a corporation incorporated in California with its principal place of business in

17

California. Thus, CRC is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Finally,

18

defendants allege that Deborah Brignac resides in and is a citizen of California. Because no

19

defendant is a citizen of Arizona, complete diversity exists.

20

Plaintiff alleges that the entity defendants are actually incorporated in Delaware. But

21

even if this were true, there would still be complete diversity between the parties. Plaintiff

22

also complains that defendants did not offer evidence that proves the citizenship of each

23

defendant. However, nothing in the removal statute requires defendants to submit evidence

24

in conjunction with their notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (requiring a party to

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants note that they mistakenly listed U.S. Bank's headquarters as Minnesota
in the notice of removal (doc. 1). They clarify that U.S. Bank is actually headquartered in
Ohio, and move for leave to amend their notice of removal. Plaintiff did not respond.
Accordingly, we grant the motion to amend the notice of removal. See LRCiv 7.2(i).
-2-

1

sign the notice of removal pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. and include "a short and plain

2

statement of the grounds for removal").

3

Next, plaintiff argues that defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the

4

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. She states that she did not ask for

5

a specific amount of damages in the complaint, and does not yet know the amount. Part of

6

the relief plaintiff seeks, however, is a declaratory judgment that defendants cannot proceed

7

with a non-judicial foreclosure of her home. If granted, this would prevent defendants from

8

foreclosing on a property that they aver is currently worth $222,000 and for which plaintiff

9

has a principal loan balance of $536,785.03. Plaintiff has not claimed otherwise. Thus, the

10

value of the object of this litigation - plaintiff's home - easily exceeds $75,000. See Cohn v.

11

Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that it is "well established that the

12

amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation") (citation

13

omitted); see also Schultz v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, CV-11-00558-PHX-NVW,

14

2011 WL 1771679, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2011) (amount in controversy met when

15

plaintiff challenged foreclosure on a property valued at $128,800 with an outstanding

16

principal loan balance of almost $300,000). Accordingly, we have diversity jurisdiction over

17

this action and removal was proper.
III

18
19

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety for failure to state a

20

claim. Because plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, we construe the lack of a response

21

as a concession and grant the motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i) ("if the unrepresented

22

party. . . does not serve and file the required answering memoranda. . . such non-compliance

23

may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose

24

of the motion summarily").

25

IV

26

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's objection to removal to federal court (doc.

27

10). IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's

28

motion for leave to amend the notice of removal (doc. 11). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
-3-

1

GRANTING defendants CRC, JPMorgan Chase, and U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss (doc.

2

15). The action is dismissed against all defendants.

3

The Clerk shall enter judgment.

4

DATED this 16th day of April, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-