Ramos v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 11/15/11 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/15/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CARMEN RAMOS
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 11-3022
:
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case is
a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Carmen Ramos.
11).
(ECF No.
The relevant issues have been briefed and the court now
rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed
necessary.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion will
be denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Carmen Ramos, proceeding pro se, commenced this
action on September 14, 2011, by filing a complaint against
Defendants Bank of America, N.A., and BAC Home Loan Servicing,
LP
(together,
“Bank
of
America”)
Montgomery County, Maryland.
in
the
(ECF No. 2).
Circuit
Court
for
According to the
complaint, Plaintiff is a Maryland resident, Defendant Bank of
America,
N.A.,
“is
a
mortgage
lender
financial
institution
headquartered in Charlotte, NC,” and Defendant BAC Home Loan
Servicing, LP, “is a subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.[,] and
is
located
in
Calabasas,
CA.”
(Id.
at
¶
1-3).
Plaintiff
alleges fraud, breach of contract, violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act, and related provisions under Maryland
law.
She seeks compensatory damages of at least one million
dollars.
Bank of America filed a notice of removal on October 24,
2011, asserting that removal was proper “based on diversity of
(ECF No. 1, at 1).1
citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”
responded, on October 28, by moving to remand.
Bank of America has opposed that motion.
II.
Plaintiff
(ECF No. 11).
(ECF No. 15).
Analysis
When the plaintiff challenges the propriety of removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that removal was proper.
See Greer v. Crown Title Corp., 216 F.Supp.2d 519, 521 (D.Md.
2002) (citing Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d
148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994)).
On a motion to remand, the court must
“strictly construe the removal statute and resolve all doubts in
favor of remanding the case to state court.”
Richardson v.
Philip Morris Inc., 950 F.Supp. 700, 702 (D.Md. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
This standard reflects the reluctance
1
In the notice of removal, Bank of America asserts that
Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, “merged with and into
Bank of America” on June 1, 2011.
(ECF No. 1, at 1-2 n. 1).
Thus, “Bank of America, N.A.[,] is the only defendant in this
case” and “no other party need consent to this removal.”
(Id.
at ¶ 5). Plaintiff has not challenged this assertion.
2
of federal courts “to interfere with matters properly before a
state court.”
Title
Id. at 701.
28
U.S.C.
§
1441
allows
defendants
to
remove
an
action “brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction.”
Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), district courts have original jurisdiction
“of all civil 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.”
The requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met in this
case.
The
jurisdictional
amount
minimum
in
of
controversy
$75,000,
damages of least one million dollars.
completely
diverse.
It
is
as
clearly
the
exceeds
complaint
the
seeks
Moreover, the parties are
undisputed
that
Plaintiff
is
a
Maryland resident and that Bank of America, the sole remaining
defendant, is a national banking association “headquartered in
Charlotte, NC.”
(ECF No. 2 ¶ 2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1348,
“[a]ll national banking associations shall, for the purposes of
all actions by or against them, be deemed citizens of the States
in which they are respectively located.”
In Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 319 (2006), the Supreme Court of the
United
national
States
bank
determined
is
located
that,
“in
for
the
purposes
State
§
designated
articles of association as its main office.”
3
of
1348,
in
a
its
As the parties
appear to agree, Bank of America’s main office is located in
North Carolina.
L.P.,
Civil
See Willis v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,
Action
No.
CCB-09-1455,
2009
WL
5206475,
at
*3
(D.Md. 2009) (“Bank of America’s articles of association clearly
state that its main office is located in North Carolina.”).
Because
controversy
the
parties
exceeds
are
$75,000,
diverse
this
court
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2
and
the
has
amount
subject
in
matter
Accordingly, removal
was proper and Plaintiff’s motion to remand will be denied.
III. Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
will be denied.
reasons,
Plaintiff’s
motion
to
remand
A separate order will follow.
________/s/_________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
2
Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary is based on her
erroneous belief that removal was premised on federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
As noted, Bank of
America expressly removed “based on diversity of citizenship, 28
U.S.C. § 1332.” (ECF No. 1, at 1). To the extent that Bank of
America argues that Plaintiff’s motion is frivolous and requests
an award of attorneys’ fees, presumably under Rule 11, the court
declines to award such relief at this time.
4
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?