The Bank of New York Mellon v. Laugand et al
NOTICE AND ORDER: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, on or before 6/8/2017, the removing defendant, Roger Joseph Laugand, shall file an amended notice of removal providing the citizenship of the defendants Roger Joseph Laugand and Cheryl Lynn Joseph Laugand, and the citizenship of the plaintiff The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-14, by setting forth all citizenship particulars required to sustain federal diversity jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/18/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA
BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, ET AL.
ROGER JOSEPH LAUGAND, AKA ROGER
J. LAUGAND AND CHERYL LYNN LAUGAND,
NOTICE AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Roger Joseph Laugand on
February 7, 2017. (R. Doc. 1). The Civil Cover Sheet filed by Mr. Laugand asserts that the
action was removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (R. Doc. 1-1). While Mr. Laugand
references the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in the Notice of Removal, he does
not make any assertions regarding the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy at
issue. The party seeking removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of
demonstrating that the Court can properly exercise diversity jurisdiction. Garcia v. Koch Oil Co.
of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003).
On March 13, 2017, The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as
Trustee for the Certificate holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 200614 filed a motion to remand. (R. Doc. 6). That motion does not seek remand on the basis of lack
of diversity jurisdiction.
When original jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the cause of action must
be between “citizens of different states” and the amount in controversy must exceed the “sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)-(a)(1).
“The burden of proving that complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to
invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction.” Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, the citizenship
of each party must be “distinctly and affirmatively” alleged in accordance with § 1332(a) and (c).
Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting McGovern v. American
Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653, 654 (5th Cir. 1975)). “The concept of complete diversity requires
that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on
the other side.” McLaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing
Harrison v. Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 1968)).
A party invoking diversity jurisdiction must allege the citizenship (i.e., domicile), rather
than mere residence, of each individual party. Jagiella v. Jagiella, 647 F.2d 561, 563 (5th Cir.
1981). The citizenship of the defendants – Roger Joseph Laugand and Cheryl Lynn Joseph
Laugand – is not asserted in either the Notice of Removal or the Petition.
Where a trustee of a traditional trust files a lawsuit in its own name, the trustee’s
citizenship “is all that matters for diversity purposes.” Hometown 2006-1 1925 Valley View,
L.L.C. v. Prime Income Asset Mgmt., L.L.C., 847 F.3d 302, 307 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1016 (2016)). The citizenship
of a corporation is determined by its state of incorporation and principal place of business. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 637
(5th Cir. 1983). A corporation’s principal place of business is its “nerve center,” meaning “the
place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92 (2010). The citizenship of the plaintiff – The Bank of
New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the
CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-14 – is not asserted in the Notice of
Removal or the Petition.
Based on the foregoing, it is unclear whether this Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction
over this action.1
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 that, on or before June 8, 2017, the
removing defendant, Roger Joseph Laugand, shall file an amended notice of removal providing
the citizenship of the defendants Roger Joseph Laugand and Cheryl Lynn Joseph Laugand,
and the citizenship of the plaintiff The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New
York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2006-14, by setting forth all citizenship particulars required to sustain federal diversity
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 18, 2017.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Whether there is federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or whether or not this matter should be
remanded for certain procedural reasons, is currently the subject of a motion to remand and will be addressed by the
court in a separate order.
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?