He v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 47

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 32 Motion ; denying 33 Motion to Stay; denying 41 Motion to Stay ( Copy of order mailed out to plaintiff on 10/19/15). (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14171-GAO
QI HE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, FANNIE MAE,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.,
Defendants.

ORDER
October 19, 2015
O’TOOLE, D.J.
The plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration to Remand (dkt. no. 31) is DENIED. First,
although Fannie Mae may have mistakenly pled in its removal papers that it was served with the
complaint, it is immaterial with respect to remand whether a party was formally served prior to
removal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(b); see also Sutler v. Redland Ins. Co., No. 12-10656RWZ, 2012 WL 5240124, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 24, 2012) (collecting cases). Second, federal
jurisdiction in this matter is not based upon diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
plaintiff appears to allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 1 Because RESPA and FDCPA arise under federal

1

There is some confusion because the plaintiff’s filed complaint alleges a violation of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691. (Notice of Removal Ex. A at ¶¶ 142-56 (dkt. no. 1-3).)
However, she appears to seek to pursue claims under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, based upon
the complaint served on Harmon Law Offices, P.C. and her opposition to Harmon’s motion to
dismiss. (See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Harmon’s Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. no. 12); Def.’s Harmon Law
Offices, P.C.’s Post-Hearing Submission Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 142-56 (dkt. no. 20-1).)

law, this Court has jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, the Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining related claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The plaintiff’s motion to obtain permission to appeal (dkt. no. 32) is DENIED as the order
denying remand does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The plaintiff’s motions to stay (dkt.
nos. 33 and 41) are DENIED.
As directed in the Order dated August 13, 2015 (dkt. no. 29), the plaintiff shall have until
November 12, 2015 to serve Bank of America, N.A. The plaintiff’s deadline for filing an amended
complaint naming as a plaintiff the co-owner of the property at issue is extended an additional
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2