Fiano et al v. Bayview Loan Sservicing et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 2/20/13. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
GABRIEL S. FIANO et al.,

*

Plaintiffs

*

v.

*

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING et al.,
Defendants
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-13-292

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be
remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs have responded (ECF
No. 8) but have failed to show that this Court has either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity
jurisdiction.
This case really involves two cases filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court in
Maryland. The first, number 02-C-12-171851, was filed by the Plaintiffs against the same
defendants in the instant case and sought to quiet title to a parcel of real property. The second,
number 02-C-173224, is a foreclosure action filed against Plaintiffs by the substitute trustees on
a deed of trust. Plaintiffs acknowledge that only defendants may remove a case from state court
to federal court, but contend their suit to quiet title should really be regarded as part of the
foreclosure action.

(Pls.’ Resp. 2.)

Regardless of how they believe their case should be

regarded, Plaintiffs’ suit to quiet title nevertheless exists as a separate state court action and this
Court must treat it accordingly. Consequently, the first case, number 02-C-12-171851, was
improperly removed.

1

As for the second case, the Court earlier pointed out the lack of a federal question and the
evident lack of complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Plaintiffs assert the
foreclosure case involves federal questions of due process and violation of various federal
statutes, but these questions, to the extent they exist, are matters only raised in defenses to the
foreclosure suit, which clearly does not rest upon federal-question jurisdiction. “[S]ince 1887 it
has been settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal
defense.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). In this
case, state law created the causes of action, “and original federal jurisdiction is unavailable
unless it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of
one of the well-pleaded state claims, or that one or the other claim is ‘really’ one of federal law.”
Id. at 13. No question of federal law is part of the plaintiffs’ claim in the foreclosure action and,
federal-question jurisdiction does not exist over it.
As for diversity jurisdiction over the foreclosure action, Plaintiffs state that Plaintiff
Mohammad Reeza Suffurally “is technically a citizen of the State of Maryland.” (Pls.’ Resp. 3.)
The Court interprets this statement as a concession of Suffurally’s Maryland citizenship. Since
at least some of the plaintiffs in the state court foreclosure case are also Maryland citizens,
diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
Removal was improperly made, and this case will be remanded by separate order.
DATED this 20th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
2