Garder III v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al
Filing
16
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/16/2014 DENYING 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDGAR GARDNER, III,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-1583-TLN-CKD
ORDER
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
RSM&A FORECLOSURE SERVICES,
LLC; & DOES 1–10,
16
Defendants.
17
18
The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Edgar Gardner, III’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to
19
20
remand (ECF No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the motion to remand is DENIED.
21
I. Factual and Procedural Background
22
On May 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court of Sacramento
23
County, against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and RSM&A Foreclosure
24
Services, LLC (“RSM&A”) (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1-1.) The suit arises from a
25
refinancing loan Plaintiff obtained on his property at 6650 18th Avenue, Sacramento, California
26
95820.1 (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Nationstar, a mortgage servicing company, and
27
1
28
This is the address listed on the notices of trustee’s sale attached to Defendants’ moving papers. (ECF No. 5.)
Defendants request judicial notice of a notice of default recorded on May 25, 2012; a notice of trustee’s sale recorded
on September 20, 2012; and a notice of trustee’s sale recorded on April 10, 2014. Plaintiff has not opposed the
1
1
RSM&A, the substituted trustee under a deed of trust, committed various unlawful acts with
2
respect to Plaintiff’s loan. A notice of default on the loan and a notice of trustee’s sale have been
3
recorded. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 24, 35.) Plaintiff seeks to avoid foreclosure and also seeks pecuniary
4
damages. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 38 & p. 29–30.)
5
On July 3, 2014, Nationstar filed a notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
6
(ECF No. 1.) RSM&A joined in Nationstar’s removal motion. (ECF No. 2.) On August 4, 2014,
7
Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand, arguing that diversity jurisdiction is not present.
8
(ECF No. 6.) Nationstar has submitted an opposition to the motion to remand.2 (ECF No. 10.)
9
II. Standard of Review
10
A civil action brought in state court, over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
11
may be removed by the defendant to federal court in the judicial district and division in which the
12
state court action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has original jurisdiction
13
over civil actions between citizens of different states in which the alleged damages exceed
14
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
15
proving diversity. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Resnik v. La Paz Guest
16
Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1961)). Diversity is determined as of the time the complaint
17
is filed and removal effected. Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131
18
(9th Cir. 2002). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles,
19
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
20
The amount in controversy is determined by reference to the complaint itself and includes
21
the amount of damages in dispute, as well as attorney’s fees, if authorized by statute or contract.
22
Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). Where the complaint does not
23
pray for damages in a specific amount, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the
24
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
25
Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d
26
398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). If the amount is not facially apparent from the complaint, the Court
27
request, and therefore the Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201.
28
2
Nationstar has also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 4.)
2
1
may “require parties to submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in
2
controversy at the time of removal.” Id. (citing Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326,
3
1335–56 (5th Cir. 1995).
4
Removal based on diversity requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff be diverse from
5
the citizenship of each defendant (i.e. complete diversity). Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61,
6
68 (1996). For purposes of diversity, a limited liability company (LLC) is a citizen of every state
7
in which its “owners/members” are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Prop. Anchorage, LP, 437
8
F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that courts are to treat LLCs like partnerships, which
9
have the citizenships of all of their members). A corporation is a citizen of any state in which it is
10
incorporated and any state in which it maintains its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §
11
1332(c)(1).
12
III. Analysis
13
i. Amount in controversy
14
Plaintiff asserts that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. (ECF No. 6 at
15
8–11.) However, the complaint seeks the following relief: (1) a temporary restraining order,
16
preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction enjoining the foreclosure of the subject
17
property; (2) an order setting aside the May 25, 2012 notice of default; (3) an order holding all
18
defendants liable for wrongful foreclosure actions; (4) an order permanently enjoining all
19
defendants from engaging in unfair competition; (5) civil penalties of $7,500 per mortgage or
20
deed of trust for multiple or repeated violations of procedural requirements; (6) compensatory and
21
general damages in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000, against all
22
defendants; (7) interest, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (8) attorney’s fees;
23
(9) costs of suit; and (10) any other relief the Court deems just and proper. (ECF No. 1-1 at 29–
24
30.) Thus, it is facially apparent from the complaint that the damages sought by Plaintiff exceed
25
the $75,000 threshold.
26
Further, in “actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the
27
amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart,
28
Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432
3
1
U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). See also Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2010 WL 2629785 at *4–5
2
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2010) (discussing cases finding that the object of the litigation was the
3
property plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from selling at foreclosure); Garcia v. Citibank,
4
N.A. 2010 WL 1658569 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23 2010) (measuring the amount in controversy
5
according to the original mortgage loan amount). In this case, a deed of trust to the property was
6
recorded in Sacramento County on March 14, 2007, as security for a loan refinance; the debt at
7
that time was valued at $303,000.00 plus interest. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 14 & Ex. A.) The notice of
8
trustee’s sale dated April 10, 2014, estimated the debt amount at $452,393.65. (ECF No. 5, Ex.
9
3.) Thus, as measured by the value of the debt, the amount in controversy requirement is also
10
met.3
11
ii. Diversity of citizenship
1. Nationstar’s citizenship
12
13
The Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 7.1 corporate disclosure statement (ECF No. 1-5) filed by
14
Nationstar states that Nationstar, an LLC, has two members: Nationstar Sub 1 LLC (with 99%
15
ownership) and Nationstar Sub 2 LLC (with 1% ownership). Both members are wholly owned by
16
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., which is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place
17
of business in Texas. No publicly traded corporation owns ten percent or more of Nationstar
18
Mortgage Holdings, Inc.’s common stock. Thus, Nationstar explains that it is a citizen of
19
Delaware and Texas, and not a citizen of California. (ECF No. 1-5 at 2; ECF No. 10 at 2–3.)
20
Plaintiff argues that Nationstar is a citizen of California, on the basis that Nationstar
21
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. is partly owned by Fortress Investment Group, LLC (“Fortress”), and
22
Fortress is owned by members who are California citizens. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) Nationstar appears
23
to agree that Fortress is the majority stockholder of Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (ECF
24
No. 10 at 3). However, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of any
25
state in which it is incorporated and any state in which it maintains its principal place of business.
26
3
27
28
The Court does not locate the original loan amount within the pleadings. Plaintiff alternatively seeks leave to
amend his complaint so that his claims now do not exceed the $75,000 requirement. (ECF No. 6 at 10.) Given the
debt amount, the fact that the property appears to be valued at over $75,000, and the relief sought, amendment
appears to be futile, so that request is denied.
4
1
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff cites no authority for the rule that the citizenship of a
2
corporation’s majority stockholder dictates that corporation’s citizenship. Plaintiff also argues
3
that Nationstar’s other members (which would apparently be other than Sub 1 and Sub 2) are
4
unknown to Plaintiff, and these members could be citizens of California. (ECF No. 6 at 7.)
5
However, Plaintiff provides no further support for this claim. Without more, the Court has no
6
basis for concluding that Nationstar is a citizen of California.
2. RSM&A’s citizenship
7
Nationstar states that RSM&A has two members: Randall S. Miller (“Miller”) and
8
9
PDPYFM, Inc. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Nationstar states that Miller is a citizen of Michigan, and
10
PDPYFM, Inc. is incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business in Florida. (ECF
11
No. 1 at 3.) Thus, the conclusion is that RSM&A is a citizen of Michigan and Florida.4 (ECF
12
No. 10 at 3.)
13
Plaintiff does not dispute this, but contends that RSM&A is also owned by Randall S.
14
Miller & Associates, P.C., a Michigan-based law firm with an additional principal place of
15
business in California. Plaintiff also argues RSM&A could have other unknown members. (ECF
16
No. 6 at 7.) However, Plaintiff does not support these allegations. Without more, the Court has
17
no basis for concluding that RSM&A is not a citizen of California.
18
IV. Conclusion
19
For the reasons discussed, the Court finds Defendants meet their burden of showing
20
jurisdiction is proper.5 Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
21
Dated: December 16, 2014
22
23
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
24
25
4
26
5
27
28
The notice of trustee’s sale recorded on April 10, 2014 (ECF No. 5, Ex. 3) lists a Michigan address for RSM&A.
Based on the allegations in Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4), and Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 9),
Plaintiff previously brought suit in 2012, with allegations stemming from his 2007 loan refinance. See Gardner v.
RSM&A Foreclosure Services, LLC & Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 12-cv-2666-JAM-AC. The complaint in that case
was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and removed to this district on the basis of diversity.
5
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?