Dooley et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 10/6/14. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THERESE DOOLEY, et al.

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. CCB-14-394

MEMORANDUM
On December 20, 2013, Plaintiffs Therese Dooley and Reed Harris filed this action
against defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Home Loans in the Circuit
Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged trespass to real
estate and violation of Maryland’s Consumer Debt Collection Act. They asked for $100,000 in
compensatory damages, $500,000 in punitive damages, and costs. On February 10, 2014,
defendants filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and removed the case to this
District on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to remand on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. To support this
argument, plaintiffs, in their motion, “proffer and stipulate that the matter in controversy does
not exceed the sum or value of $75,000” and that, therefore, the amount in controversy
requirement is not met. (Pls.’s Mot. Remand 1, ECF No. 12.) Defendants have filed an
opposition to this motion. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.
Defendants properly removed this case to this District. Plaintiffs are now attempting to
defeat this court’s subject matter jurisdiction through a post-removal stipulation that the amount
in controversy requirement is no longer met. They cannot do this.

1

Diversity of citizenship exists because plaintiffs are both residents of Maryland and defendants are citizens of
North Carolina and California.

1

A defendant may remove from state court to federal court “any civil action . . . of which
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). And
this court has original jurisdiction over actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because the plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different
states, and because the plaintiffs in their complaint have placed $600,000 in controversy here,
defendants’ removal on February 10, 2014, was proper.
Yet plaintiffs have pressed the argument that a post-removal stipulation that the amount
in controversy is under $75,000 can defeat this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This argument
is incorrect. The requirements of diversity jurisdiction—including the amount in controversy—
are measured as of the date the case is filed in federal court or removed from state court. See
Whiteman v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 729 F.3d 381, 384 n.6 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing
14AA Charles Alan Wright, Arthur, R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3702.4, at 457-58 (4th ed. 2011)); see also Morris v. Naugle, 722 F. Supp. 1285,
1287 (D. Md. 1989) (“Jurisdiction is thus determined, not by hindsight, but by reasoned foresight
. . . .”). Moreover, as the Supreme Court has stated, “events occurring subsequent to removal
which reduce the amount recoverable, whether beyond the plaintiff’s control or the result of his
volition, do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has attached.” St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938). Because this court’s jurisdiction attached
on February 10, 2014, plaintiffs’ stipulation on May 12, 2014 cannot now oust that jurisdiction.
There are exceptions to this general principle, but none apply here. If it were shown that,
“at the time the plaintiff filed her complaint, she could not have recovered, to a legal certainty,
the amount demanded,” remand might be justified. Naugle, 722 F. Supp. at 1287 (emphasis in

2

original) (citing id. at 289). Or, if plaintiffs could show that subsequent events, such as dismissal
of a claim, had reduced the amount in controversy, this court might have the “discretion whether
to retain jurisdiction . . . .” Planmatics, Inc. v. Showers, 137 F. Supp. 2d 616, 629 (D. Md. 2001)
(quoting Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 112 (4th Cir. 1995)). But the prayer for relief in
plaintiffs’ complaint clearly demands compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000,
and no basis has been shown to reduce that amount other than the plaintiffs’ conclusory
“stipulation.”2 Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be denied.
A separate Order follows.

October 6, 2014
Date

/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2

That the plaintiffs do not even attempt to explain the basis for their belief that the amount in controversy no longer
meets the jurisdictional minimum is one more reason to retain jurisdiction here.

3