Property Choice Group, Inc. v. LaSalle Bank National Association et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 8 --motion to remand; directing the Clerk to ADD U.S. Bank as a defendant in this action. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 7/2/2012. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PROPERTY CHOICE GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.: 8:12-cv-1042-T-23MAP

LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
Seeking to invalidate a mortgage and to quiet title, Property Choice Group
(Property Choice) sued the defendants in state court. Washington Mutual Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-8 (the WaMu Trust); Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and U.S. Bank National Association
(U.S. Bank) (a party not named in the complaint) remove. Alleging that the
defendants (collectively “the mortgagees”) fail to invoke subject matter jurisdiction or
to unanimously consent to removal, Property Choice moves (Doc. 8) to remand.
The mortgagees invoke diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
requires that the mortgagees establish diversity of citizenship and the requisite
amount in controversy. Because Property Choice resides in Florida, the mortgagees’
uncontested allegation that U.S. Bank, the WaMu Trust, MERS, and LaSalle Bank

National Association (LaSalle) (another named defendant) each reside outside
Florida establishes diversity of citizenship. When a plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
the value of the relief sought determines the amount in controversy. Shannon v.
Enterprise Rent A Car, 279 F.3d 967, 973 (11th Cir. 2002). Property Group seeks to
invalidate a $272,000 mortgage. The value of the mortgage at issue, and thus the
amount in controversy, exceeds $75,000.
Because LaSalle fails to consent to the notice of removal, Property Choice
challenges the notice under the unanimity rule for removal jurisdiction. A defendant
may remove without the consent of a nominal party. Nathe v. Pottenberg, 931 F.
Supp. 822, 824 (M.D. Fla. 1995). A nominal party includes a party with no legal
interest in the outcome of the action and a party in whose absence the plaintiff can
obtain sufficient relief. Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen and
Assistants’ Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1970). The mortgagees demonstrate
that Bank of America absorbed LaSalle in 2007. (Doc. 13-1) Subsequently, U.S.
Bank acquired Bank of America’s interest in the mortgage. (Doc. 13-2) A defunct
entity with no interest in the mortgage at issue, LaSalle qualifies as a nominal party.
Also, Property Choice challenges U.S. Bank’s participation in the removal
because Property Choice failed to name U.S. Bank as a defendant in state court.
U.S. Bank alleges that Property Choice sues LaSalle in error and that, as the WaMu
Trust’s trustee and LaSalle’s successor in interest, U.S. Bank holds the legally
recognizable interest in this action. U.S. Bank’s inclusion in the notice of removal
-2-

before formal joinder amounts to an inconsequential error. Under Rule 21, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the clerk is directed to add U.S. Bank as a defendant in this
action.
The plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 8) to remand is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 2, 2012.

-3-