McClain v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Remand; dismissing Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendant Lawrence. A hearing on the outstanding motion to dismiss shall be conducted Thursday, April 11, 2013, at 2:30 P.M., at the Third Floor Courtroom of the United States Courthouse, located at Wright Square, Savannah, Georgia, 31412. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 04/05/2013. (thb)

F l r

' ' - r , 1

i' j1..;;
U

U.5. iSTF, CJi,':lT
fi
;DI
jlir
LU[:Lj I j,,,.
COURT FOR
THE TJNITED STATES DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVAIINAII DIVXSION

IN

D O U G L A SA .

MCCLAIN,

D]
^ 'i -f
.trJCTIIIL,|

-i
Wi nrn fl,g hS
u:

C
,run* ru0qr*^*
sc.0lsT. G,{"
0t'

*
*

-i SF
T

CIVIL
*

ACTTON NO.

cv 411-305

*
*

B A N K O F A M B R I C AC O R P O R A T I O N ;
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
f / K / a T H E B A N K O F N E WY O R K ,
A S T R U S T E EF O R T H E
C
C B R T I F I C A T EH O L D E R S W A L T , I N C .
A L T E R N A T I V EL O A N T R U S T O A 2 ] . ,
PASS THROUGH
MORTGAGE
i
S
CERTTFTCATES, ERIES 2006-0A21;
C
a n d C H A T H A M O U N T YS H E R T F FA L S T .
LAWRBNCE;

*

*

Defendants.

ORDER

Presentl-y pending before the Court is Plaintiff's
Remand."

(Doc. no.

the reasons set

forth

to

25.)

below,

I.
Pl-aintiff

jI

6. )

'

To

this

moti-on is

and for

DENIED.

EAEEGEOUND

purchased real- property Iocated at 3 Wakefiel-d

Savannah,

Place,

Upon due consideration

"Motion

Georgiar

finance

Thls defendant
York Melfon. "

the

oil December 18,
purchase,

is hereinafter

referred

2006.

Plaintiff

(Am. Compl.
executed

a

to as Defendant "Bank of New

promissory
amount of

note

favor

in

of

(Id-

$1,l-60,000.

Mortgage Electronic

(*MERS") Iegal

Inc.

property.

(Id.

nnJ_ e

l - t e fe n d a n t

rrv

LU

and
urrv

t

sale

in

Iegal

conmenced this

Mel-l-on conducted

alia,

wronsful

amended his

Plaintiff
'l

+ vR |

qeeki

?n r
4 v r 1 l1

nrr

uuu

complaint

ttrl.amerteq

supervision,

breach of duty of good faith
infl-iction

foreclosure

the

Chatham County,
20 . )

Plaintif

declaration
punitive
'l

itioat'i

execution

of

the

r:nsf s.

en

days

l-ater

f v+m
+ rrnr l

rv^ r! rvn ln r!-sr+f r r l
Y
r Y

an assignment,
and fair

dealing [, ]

property

Jocated

f or

narfc

on

negligent

real

relief

forecl-osure

FX

ofl October 13,

[]

damages of an unspecified
nn

five

in

action

distress,

(Notice

Georgia."

New

obtaining

of emotional

Plaintiff's

f ' s prayer

that

of

1 l 1 l2 1 ,

( T d . 1 13 4 . )

qi-

improper

to

properly

e q r+ n
u e v + r mr m ' ri r Y n

ssrrrsYvs

a

the power of

foreclosure

forecJosure/

and intentional

(Id.

Defendant Bank of

Court of Chatham County, Georgia,

the Superior

O rL. v _v ! l . r a r
vu ]v n

on the

the deed and note from MHRS.

to

Plaintiff

2011.

defaulted

deed without

security

Plaintiff's

title

Plaintiff

Georgia law by exercising

vio1ated

York Mellon

real

on June 7, 2011.

inter

aIIeges,

Plaintiff

Registration

Plaintiff's

New York

sale of the property

f oreclosure
24.)

of

Bank

the

in

title

Tn short'

tl B.)

in

The note was secured by a

1 11 . )

deed to secure debt granting
Systems,

NA,

Bank,

Countrywide

of

R e m o v a l -E x .

requests,

was void,

relating

I,

jns

19-

-lnter al-ia;

a

compensatory and

amount, attorney's

restrain

at

in

nrdor

'ln
ev

fees and

nro-'ent
u!vvr

the

from proceeding with an evictlon

sheriff
lL-thEe
l

rea'l

n lrvoJn e r t v
P
} Lr

rEqf

af

eJ

+n.r

i ssrre.

-

allu

of the Pl-alntiff

^^eh5h^r1-

a

i n - i r r nrc f r u r ir o n
Hr vL

for

rrlJ

lJErlttarrElrL

from
the

-

above mentioned restraints.
the case was removed, on January 18' 201"2,

after

Shortly

Defendants Bank of
(colfectively

Mellon
filed

America Corporation

filed

to

response
2,

on February

dismiss

in

New York

"Bank Defendants")
.l_hon

D'l rinJ-iff

opposition

2012.

a reply.

Defendants filed

as the

to

dismiss.

a

a motion

counsel,

referred

and Bank of

ranracon1_erl

to

On February

the
16,

l.rrr

motion
20L2,

to

Bank

This Court scheduled a hearing

for

pending

motion.

The hearing

was

continued and subsequently reschedufed for

July 30' 2012.

The

May 23,

hearing

2AI2,

ds to

the

was agaj-n continued,
the hearing

to continue

until-

and then both parties
a mutually-agreeable

to a l-ack of activity,

20L2, and instructed

date.

the Court administratively

case on September 10,
they

could move to

reopen the

case to

the

Court

Plaintiff
14,

granted
to

2012.

extension

month

laterr

otr

counsel- moved to withdraw

Plaintiff's
The

a

of

to

new counsel within

find
On

motion

the

December

time

in

3,

order

20L2,

to

closed the
parties

that
on

(See doc. no. 18. )
October

as attornev

withdraw
twentv

and

26,
of

2012,
record.

encouraged

davs of November

Plaintiff

retain

Due

schedule a hearing

the motion to dismiss j-n Augusta, Georgia.
Approximately

consented

counsel

moved

for

an

The Court

.rrAnter.l

r e r r r r e s l _c d

J_ e
h

e - .1 e n s f
*x;

January 1, 201-3, to retain
on the record

indication

2,

On January

2013,

Plaintiff,

February B, 2013, Plaintiff

through
both
after

of

is no

located

the reply

brief

granted

the

to

was filed.
The time

Despite both
case

the

as

for

an

motion

Plaintiff

The Court

reply

to

instructed

remand would be considered
Plaintiff

failed,

for

Plaintiff

and the motion to remand is

now ripe

to

On

an extension

reopen

to

and enabled

motion

reply.

for

response.

March B, 2013.

the

that

a

filed

s€,

Bank Defendants fil-ed their

Court

Court

reply

and including

parties

expired,

the
to

time

pro

moved the Court

move the

to

ordered,

declined,

there

successfully

acting

to Bank Defendants'

repty

failing

extension

until

to the motion on January 22, 2013.

response in opposition

previously

Plaintiff

that

Pl e i nf i f f

To date,

new counsel.

(Doc. no. 25. )

motion to remand.

parties

'ncr
glv1,.Y

replacement counsel.

and retained

of time to

on,

or either

to

reply

has

for

the Court's

from state

court

consideration.

II.

LEGAI STAI{DARD

A defendant may only remove an action
the federal
subiect
shall

court would possess originaL

matter.

2 B U . S . c . S 1 4 4 1 ( a ).

have original

jurisdiction

of

aII

jurisdiction

over the

"The district
civil

if

actions

courts
where

nl ri

nti

remnrri

!EILIUVJTTV

f f
ncr

J

not

qdinl_

raanri

Irle.,
state

court

apparent

is

from

tt

remen1.

exceeds the jurisdictional
amount

iurlsdictional
r - c r m ta 'iln t r
v

vrlrlr

f

u

f

r r L

t

may require

the court

that

not

the

facially

tLh aL
ar

!L^

damaoe-

7

Of

exceeds

if

LIIE

thg

the

Plaza lI,

is

it

amount in

the

the

" [R]emoval f rom

2010) .
proper

t

vurrtuYUb

v!

I r.4rvrl F t rrs.v. r n d c r , a n r : e
I
rvr

requirement."
is

horo

Pretka v. KoJter Citv

Id.

facially

controversy

at ?54.

"If

the

from

apparent

should l-ook to the notice

the

of removal and

evidence rel-evant to the amount in controversy

the time the case was removed. "
in

A

(11th Cir.

complaint

of

amolrnf

bears

re

vrrrulut

controversy

ljurisdictionallyl
the

of

Sheppard, B5

tllnJhoro

urlrvullL

l"rrr
vI

in

amount

'7
44, 752

608 F.3d

.qneci f i c
rFUU!!!u

m ur rrLs . 1 _ n *rvfvi u\ r F
ltl
I/

the

inn.+l

a

party

Diaz v.

"

1996) .

Cir.

n'l er'l

c V e fl eUn ldLa n l _
U l!E r q l

that

r+sau

(11th

l-505
h.aq

evidence
irrri
sr

jurisdiction.

establ-ishing

1502,

removing

remand, the

to

"On a motion
burden of

between citizens

28 U. S. C. S 1332(a) .

states.rr

dif f erent

and coSLS, and is

interest

excl-usive of

F.3d

exgeeds the sum or value of $75,000'

in controversy

the matter

notice

of

removal

will

Id.
not

Concl-usory allegations
suffice;

Best Buv Co. , 269 F.3d 1316, 131,9-20 (11th Cir.

( - lh rr '!lr r r vI u6 r ' r r . r F q
vl q
J

tun
v

qu p l- - rUi Ue r - J _
rr J
J
L

must be

there

rrnderl rli nrr f acts to meet the def endant ' s burden.

III.

at

Williams

v.

2001) .

DISCUSSXON
m re iL_Lj E ro r
_
rr s

e l
i r r! r iA g M lrV t ri r - l _ i n n
H r
J

m reurJr
rr

l rLe
u

qc.l

r i
!rq r J E U

by any party,

or the

dt
Cir.

213 F.3d l-331-,1333-34 (1lth
was

(
1441-b),

1332 (a) .

requirement,

of

A. Complete Diversity

r-if izenehin

of

Corporation

of

New York

Mell-on

place

principal

case

U. S. C.

SS

address

the Court will

1332 (a) 's

P1aintiff

is

Delaware

a

is

a

New York

corporation

Defendant is a citizen

a citizen

with

it.s

Defendant Bank

corporation

in New York.

of business

is

complete

Defendant Bank of

place of business in North Carolina.

principal

28

+ I

's motj-on focuses on

(Am. Compl. 1[ 1.)

of the State of Georgia.
America

See

S

rerrrriremeni_

UfTf

VT

Anf

Citizenship

satisfies

actj-on

civil

dirrersifv

\r

of S 1332(a) .

each resuirement

V+VE!++LJ

rt

R e m o v a l -i n t h i s

Even though Plaintiff

the amount in controversy

This

2000) .

Qamha

jurisdiction.

diversity

on

based

any trme.

court,

with

Thus, neither

its
Bank

of the State of Georgia as contemplated

under 28 U. S.C. S 1332 (c) .

Plalntiff

is

completely

diverse

from Bank Defendants.
The Court must next
Sheriff

A1 St.

admits that
for

Lawrence.

Flrst,
rd- .'w - u l - L E
' l ^ l ^^
!

civil-

wa5

actions

Bank Defendants'

Defendant Lawrence is

two reasons,

is

nrnnorr'
lJrvIJErry

no evidence
c a r r rvp 6 l
LV

DEr

of

removal-

of Georgia,

but,

diversity.

on record

k r r z p 'l lq ar ir nf1 - i f f .
f
L
!
uI

notice

a citizen

he does not destroy

there

is

Defendant Chatham Countv

consider

that
The

Defendant
removal

of

governed by 28 U. S. C. S 1"44I, which states,

in

rrr

n + u fL

n E ! 1 1L-J ir r ni e n t
c
u re
lJ

IJdf

+I.J . o= r - f=
h L
l
L

7

i n tLc IrEc q f
E
J

rif

of

title

this

nr/rnF rl tr ini

U

the

(emphasls

1441(b) (2)

of

the

parties

Wal-Mart

defend,ants.
gL!vJJVgf

+9V

1441(b) ,

^ .I- y' r. '
\JI r

n rTc rVrE I nL1 _ q
cI J
IJ E

fhere

v Y 9 d

case

seems

l _h e

p ' l , a ' if i f f

* - . r rJrE+ r l J y \ /
UI
!
}J!

r'r* I

rFm.)---'r

rErttuVctJ.r

lsi r-l

i v + 'r ir E e d
o n
J
N r ++ #
L

VVcII-I'.lo!

rz inined

r f v

. .").

and

nronerl

tJ!vHu!rJ

and

Court after

of proper

service

(HL),

forum

to

removed

served

this

filed

its

the

reSident

Court. before

the

case
notice

McCuen.

def endant

resident

!+rrtv

v.

Under S

state.

serve

served
rr

("One of

make

to

the

2010 U.S.

hgCaUSg

Casg

defendant

in

of the record

removal,2 and of

the case's removal, fail-s to provide

evidence

of process as to Defendant Lawrence.

the Court concJudes that

'

rref

of

Gibson

Cf.

Here, careful- examination

of the Chatham County Superior
this

had

a citizen

28 U.S.C. S

2010)

However, f,t the time Wal-Mart

I^Ieq ncr nronorl

9 r f L + v

this

-

a

28,

the

of

presence

M c C u e n fs

r e lmv n r vr a4 l tq
E lt

^^

(M.D. Ga. Jan.

MrlCrren- i s a citizen

!

f1D

*4

in

the citizenship

served.

5:09-CV-228

rfuvsvra,

t

unremovable.
nf
v!

EcEt----L-P, No.

Stores

is

language

consider

have been properly

that

LEXIS 701-3, at

Dist.

The plain

added).

parties

the

brought."

is

the Courts to only

requires

any of

aS def endants

Served

which such action

in

State

Statute

nerl dnd

_|J!vFv!

1332(a)

under section

be removed if

mav nof

f emovable

OthefWiSe

actiOn

of the jurisdiction

sol-ely on the basis
of

.,Civil

Thus,

Defendant Lawrence was not properly

that on
The Superlor Court of Chatham County's docket refJects
November 7, 2011, service was nerfectecl a.c to Defendant Bank of America
There is no such indrcation
Corporation.
for Defendant Lawrence,

served. 3

Defendant Lawrence was properly

Second/ even rf
his

citizenshiP

fraudulent

disregarded

under

Fraudul-ent

1S

j oinder

roinder.

nl aintiff

names a non*diverse

defeat
Nat'f

Ins,_ ec',

Further,

I218,

then

F + + , , n , , ' rn * f I r r i n i n e r i
_rUarrEU

IIAUUUJEIILf_V

tL hr e
r E

(11th

n o n - dsi! VEet fL
V ! '
llVrr

non-diverse
back to
N.A.,
*6

the

situation,

no possibility

action

against

plaintiff

said

is

S e V VeLf, e n d a n t
d!

Ga.

Id.;

court./'

No. 5:11*CV-3tl

complaint

Nov.

2I,

issue[,]"
3

sheriff

to

Revnolds v.

2011).

does not contain

mentions him to describe
deputy

have

FIOf enCe

."

V.

2007) .

In

dismiss

must

the

JPMorqan Chase Bank

( M T T ), 2 0 1 , 1 U . S . D i s t .

evict

Here,

Plaintiff's

office's

the

Plaintiff
and to

role

amended

of wrongdoing

pleading

his

(Am. Compl. fl 4),

LBXIS 133874, at

even one allegation
Pfaintiff's

Defendant Lawrence.

as to

to

the

defendant and denv anv motion to remand the matter

state

(M.D.

court

"federal

Wash.
2006) .

Cir.

C r e s c e n t R e s - _ . _ _ L !,e 4 8 4 F . 3 d l - 2 9 3, 1 , 2 9 " 1( 1 1 t h C i r .
that

a
to

is

there

a cause of
the

order

Henderson v.

1281

shows that

can establish

defendant,

resident

F.3d

a defendant

"if

pfaintiff

the

454

in

solely

of

" [w] hen

occurs

jurisdiction."

federal- diversity

doctrine

the

defendant

served'

only hriefly

of designating

"a

property

at

from the

note that

the Magistrate

rt is worth noting that the unanimity of consent requirement in
multiple
defendants
does not require
removal- cases with
consent of
served.
Johnson v. Elizabeth
defendants who have not been properly
Wellborn, P.A., 418 F. App'x. 809, 815 (11th Cir. 2011).

These tangential

C o m p 1 . 9 14 1 ) .

As suChr anY claims

Lawrence.

now

Court

turns

requirement
articulates

four

to

o f S l - 3 3 2( a ) .

in

(?\

not

P sl r,r e i n f i f f
rr
r

l-rrrf

ar'rrritah'l

tsL{LTJ-LAUJE

UUL

the

burden that
hrz mnre

S' r7 vq v ' 0 0 0
Y
l v

Pfaintiff/
r v rfl lr mrn rl raL' i n f t J
s
v:
}J q
r

avers that
would

s

n"*

: !'i --^

$75,000

District

:

a

rectttesfincr

( iJ )
\
/

Dcfc.-r-'-+

f o COnfef

crttief.

titfe

-Ue

ILTAY

UETClIUO.IILJ

fOf

D

These

'J-*--p

uarttaVu

are

threshold.
of

have

not

satisfied

their

loan value exceeds the property

Bank Defendants'

jurisdictional

'

damages

tOO Soer:r:lat-i ve
+vYsvv

nofendants

\r/

motion

}JL,tII-LLIVE

exceed

Northern

(L\

the current

then

IEf

Plaintiff

requirement,

so damages are not measured by the value

and

nronertrr.
F'!vyv*ejl

is

e
r e ' l fi E If

e

controversy

remand: (1) the punitive
afe

\L,/

in

amount

As to this

reasons for

breach of contract,
of

the

emenclecl r:omolaint

his

i lrur! rdi sq vd i+ nl lr - i n n : .
!
! L v
r
=nr- i nn

of

complete diversity

Controversy

B. Amount in

dULIUIIT

Defendant

exists.

citizenship

ar'rlu lYe o e c l
s

against

Defendant Lawrence are

against

DISMISSED, and the Court concludes that

The

are unquestionably

allegations

a cause of action

to establish

insufficient

(Am.

property

from the subject

Pl-aintiff

to evict

the sheriff

order to

issued an eviction

Court of Chatham County, Georgia,

arottmenf

first

s

for

!vr

assertions
too

ltnnersltes'i

rre.

on

ArF

focuses

n r ua vre r
}J! JL

amended

Georgia cases to

his

relief.

that

speculative

Plaintiff

value

Pl-aintiff

punitive
to

relies
support

damages

satisfy

on two
his

the
recent

argument:

Est-at-e of Antoni

CV-00288-AT (N.D. Ga. JuIy

18,

fn Ke11ev, the plaintiff

her

modification

of

the

modification

but

mortgage

instead

jurisdiction

amount in controversy

was satisfied.

a

seek

damages in

to

Court declined

Kurdi,
and

disclosure

compensatory and punitive
remanded the

court
provide

any support

claims

for

r - n m n e n s a tLo!r v
v
uv4,t/vrlss

punitive
j

4 P-- aintiff
' l"
+ha
LllE

attached

of

and
the

its

mortr

Ultimately,

assertion

I i kel v

that
or

than

punitive
complalnt

claims

the
when

not

for
of

amount

the district

defendant

alone

did

controversy.

asserted

the

because

the

the home, and the

in

unspec-ified

an

damages.

damages,

r-lamarres
-

j urisdictional

,,.i d l -t
yfEfu,

case
for

compensatory

plaintiff

sought

subject

that

establish

about the amount in
the

of

home.

There, the plaintiff

had no equity

speculate

in

Similarly,

to

The allegations

complaj-nt.

the plaintiff

showed that

wrongful

amount of

specific
the

review

to

the case was due to be

failed

defendant

on her

forecJosed

and concluded that

remanded because the

failed

and then

conducted a sua sponte

court

The district

not

Bank of

v.

the defendant agreed to

that

alleged

a binding

matter

and Kurdi

2 0 1 ' 2 ),

N o . I : 1 - 2 - c v - 2 8 8 7 - W S D ( N . D . G a . N o v . 1 9 , 2 0 1 ' 2 \- 4

America- N-4-,

honor

M o t t - g e g e . - - L - L e ,N o . l - : 1 2 -

v. Nationstar

Kellev

failed

to

plaintiff's
added

exceeded

to
the

Iimit.

faifed

rnnea67.j
e}/}JtLr--**-

as exhibrts

4l-

p

to

I o n r o w i r i e. a n d t h e C o u r t ' s r e s e a r c h f a i l - e d t o
citation
to these two cases,
These cases were
Pfaintrff's

motion to

10

dismiss.

involved

present

the

UnIike

need

punitive

not

the

meri-ts

It

true

that

amount in

is

damages must be considered

a

certainty

Iegal

that

Equin. Co. V. Credit
v

relief,

injunctive
is

r r v v Y U

it
This

satisfied.

u !

/

is

her:ause

the

reason,

Plaintiff's

diversity
it

is

casesf

apparent to
Hol-l-ev

recoveredr "

BZI F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th

Plaintif

cJear that

leads

be

cases

when "determining

unless

cannot
Corp.,

Alliance

H o w c r r e r-

1"987).

Cir.

such

of

in

controversy

punitive

those

For this

into

delve

damages argument.

the jurisdictional

of

neither
relief.

seeking injunctive

claims

Lhe Court

sj-tuation,

f

is

al-so

seeki no

the amount in controversy

Court

to

Pl-aintiff's

second

argumenf,,
admits that he is requesting

Plaintiff
He notes

while

that

*this

remedy would halt

Defendants

from

through a breach*of-contract

suit

would

25,

not

6.)

In

it

at

relief,
is

bar

is well

"actions

Occidental
f-i r

i s s r r e '-

value

More

! J J J '

rel-ief

fe +hve
r

at

of

the

Chem. Corp. V. Bullard,

'l qO?
\

injunctive

value

r z a ' lt t e

stake."

specifically,

the

nf

nrnnertrz

the

Roper v.

declaratory

object

value

(Doc. no.
injunctive

of

the

lltigation."

995 F.2d 1046, I047
if

plaintiff

a

(1lth
"seeks

on the property

d p i _e r m i n e s

Saxon Mortq.

1t_

or

it

the amount j-n controversy

foreclosure

barring

Loan

the

against McCl-ain."

that

relief.

foreclosure,

recovering

seeking

established

measured by the

injunctive

Ser

the

at

f inanCial

, No. 1:09-CV-

LEXIS 3'1194, at

312-RWS, 2009 U. S. Dist.

amount in
fair

controversy

t^n n

7\'r
^

44

rrrr.

Al-d.

v.

White

property,

.n 11\

Llr

f{ug.

'..But

tL/-L-L/

nor Whitets

("Therefore,

I04'7

Wel-l-s Farqo

No. 1:11-cv-408-MHT (WO) 2011 U.S. Dist.
'
(lvl,u.

(N.D. Ga. May 5,

was $98,350, the property/s
cf.

market value.");

at

995 F.2d

see Occidental,

2009);

*6

\

neither

debt/

current

'Fl-,a mnrfns^a
LllE
lLtL/r LYOVg

qaclr

'Ur!r

courts

"Moreover,

r n r r- L - " iL r v rn n
sl i
r

in
r r r iJr

look

often

erli dcnr:ed lrrr f he
confrcrversv

e r
s rn

JEEr

a foreclosure

in

deed to
case.//

value

f v r rEe rr -vlrn q v
! o
U
s+ t

of

I

loan

B a n k I , I c ! ' I A - $ - s ' - nN o . 1 : 1 2 - C V * 0 2 9 1 1 - R W S ,2 0 1 - 3U . S . D i s t .
,
+'l (N.D. Ga. Mar.

35838, at

Chase Bank N.A.,
133874, at

*6

15, 2013) ; Revnolds v.

secured

D
r lf

by

$1,160,000.00
"issue,

r
q -Ji r r n 1 I I i
Lr -,

a

€€

deed

nva-'.f
arl
EAEI-LlLELt

property

LBXIS

qqAr\/
nrnmt
HrvrLLroDvry

deed

.
t.rlr i nl-r
WllIUll

the

amount

of

the purchase of the real

property

at

secure

(Am. Compl. fl 1 .)

was removed, the

LEXIS

a
r r nJ L E r
rll f

to

to finance

O

as

States

(* [T]he security

requirement.")

meets the amount-in-controversy
I J a r! a ,
rrE E

2011)

.

JPMorsan

N o . 5 : 1 1 - C V - 3 1 1 ( M T T ), 2 0 1 , 1 U . S . D i s t .

(M.D. Ga. Nov. 2I,

"\ I

amount in

United

v.

of

tre

the
the

determine
WaIker

the

of

the validity

value

*9

the amount in

represents

the

s e c r rr i t v

Home Nlaltq.,

total

the

nrrvn rh! ivh i t i n c r L r i r Y
y
r
r

to

undisputed

LEXIS 93889, at

because White does not challenge

controversy

the

As of
at

debt,

in

2011, dt

issue/ s fair

L2

the

Wd.D

time the case

market

value

was

(Notice of Removal Bx. 8.,

$1,24'7,000.00.s

to demonstrate that

has failed
lrarrino
vq!

!

f he foreclosure

llrv

value

r

Lrr*

of

nronerfvf
t|/!VIJL!9j

s

fair

qa.rrrri

daad

property

the

nrr

f he

minimum requirement
remand provides
refute

to

of

q q JoL r! r z
-

nI V Lt E
I o e

the

value

clear
of

any, facLs or meritorious

amount

in

noti-ce of

amount in

controversy

Therefore,

removal

Plaintiff's

clearlv

motion

to

nnn

to

l/

/JtVVU

allegations

Cnnrrerselrr-

establishes

jurisdictional

exceeds the

q? q

motion

's

Pl-aintiff

controversv.

securitv

fL l ll s +
"

EAUEEU

Bank

that

the

t.hreshold.

(doc.

remand

the

that

the

^-'^^^'J

l rVo It Ih
V L

(
1"332a) .

S

is

few, if

the

Defendants/

and

It

issue.

value

trrnmi

relief

1_
should not be determined l'rrz ho

at

market

Plaintiff

the value of iniunctive

action

Lurvu

vr

at 2.)

no.

25)

is

DENTED.
determined

Having
jurisdiction
consider

over

this

that

this

civil

the Bank Defendants'

Given the unique procedural

matter,

County,

of

this

The fair
Georgia,

CaSe

history

market
at the

and

wil-I

a
, n r'n* o r lr v * - y t a x r e c o r d w a s a t t a c h e d
, nv B.
notice
RemovaJ as Exhibit
Judicial

-ri'-rj

--!i--^

UUILoLIVE

€--!-

IoLLD

*--'

Ittoy

L^

!s

rL - r - l-] q^s

a- t
-

a- nr v
* -

Court

original
will

next

motion to dismiss.

of the case, a hearing

on

Delay has permeated the
nO

vafue
fisted
is
time of removaL.

l,]anr^'i

4UJ

the

outstandinq

the motion to dlsmiss is appropriate.
nr61crress

possesses

Court

]pnaor

l-ro

1 " n 1o A 6 l g g [

the appraised
val-ue by
A copy of the Chatham

.

Chatham
County,

to Bank Defendants'Notice
of
of public
records
and other

sf aoe

of

f he

n r o n e e u u i rnr o .
rlr y

r

Fed.

R.

E v i d . 2 0 1 ( d ) , ' s e e a L s o U n i v e r a l E x p r e s s , I n c . V . U n i t e d S t a t e s S E e, I 1 1 F .
App'x 52, 53 (l"Lth Cir. 2006) ("Publ-ic records are ameng the permissibte
facts that a district
court may consider.").
Accordingly, the Court takes
judicial
fair market vafue as evidenced by the
notice of the property's
tax record,

r3

Accordingly,

a
the Court hereby ORDERS hearing

on the pending

motion to dismiss to be conducted on Thursday, April
at

2:30

p.m.,

dt

the

Third

Floor

Courtroom

of

11' 201'3,
the

United

States Courthouse Jocated at Wright Square, Savannah, Georgia,
3 l - 4t _ 2.

IV.
Based upon the

CONCLTISION
the

foregoing,

motion to remand (doc. no. 25).
against

the

DENIES Plaintiff's

Plaintiff's

claims

motj-on to

11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.,
United

States

shall

dismiss

be conducted

dt the Third
focated

Courthouse,

asserted

A hearing

Defendant Lawrence are DISMISSED.

outstanding
April

Court

on the

Thursday,

Floor Courtroom of
at

Wright

Square,

Savannah, GeorgTia, 3141-2.
O R D E RE N T E R S Da t A u g u s t a ,
April ,

Georgia,

this

5'n day of

2013.

UNITED

14

DI STRICT