Grundy v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al

Filing 114

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT entered. This matter is REMANDED to Essex County Superior Court for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.(Lara, Miguel)

Case 1:17-cv-11449-PBS Document 114 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
RICHARD GRUNDY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action
v.
)
No. 17-11449-PBS
)
HSBC BANK USA, N.A. and
)
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________
)

ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT
June 3, 2020
Saris, D.J.
In July 2017, pro se plaintiff Richard Grundy filed suit in
Essex County Superior Court to prevent the foreclosure of his
home. Defendants removed the case to federal court and,
following an order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Grundy
filed an amended complaint comprising only state law claims.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which this Court
granted in part.
Following the Court’s summary judgment order, the remaining
claims are (1) a breach of contract claim limited to “other
charges” on mortgage account statements from 2014 to 2016,
including at a minimum charges of $1,475.00, $3,011.27,
$1,485.50, $3,002.91, and $3,152.85; (2) a claim for breach of

1

Case 1:17-cv-11449-PBS Document 114 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 4

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect
to the “other charges” and to a $12,500 repair fund; (3) a fraud
claim with regard to the “other charges”; and (4) a Chapter 93A
claim based on two improper charges totaling approximately
$4,500 and the $12,500 repair fund and potentially subject to
treble damages. This Court ordered Defendants to submit a brief
on whether the remaining amount in controversy exceeds the lower
jurisdictional limit of $75,000.
Defendants assert that at least $77,894.53 in “other
charges” on the mortgage account statements could still be at
issue. However, Defendants have not explained how they reached
that total nor provided the documents underlying their
calculation. Judge Bowler identified at least $12,137.53 in
“other charges” in her Report & Recommendation, but the record
does not reflect the amounts of any additional “other charges.”
Even applying treble damages to Grundy’s Chapter 93A claims, the
known amounts in controversy do not add up to $75,000.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff would also be entitled to
attorney’s fees on his Chapter 93A claim. Chapter 93A provides
that a prevailing plaintiff “shall . . . be awarded reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with [his]
action.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 9(4). The parties have not
cited, and the Court could not find, any case law on whether pro
se attorneys are entitled to recover under Chapter 93A’s

2

Case 1:17-cv-11449-PBS Document 114 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 4

attorney’s fees provision. Defendants cite a state appellate
case in which the court granted fees to a pro se attorney under
the contractual terms of a promissory note. See Robbins v.
Krock, 896 N.E.2d 633, 635 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). However, cases
examining statutory fee-shifting provisions generally deny fees
to pro se attorneys. See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 437 (1991)
(“[T]he overriding statutory concern [in 42 U.S.C. § 1988] is
the interest in obtaining independent counsel for victims of
civil rights violations.”) (emphasis added); Aronson v. U.S.
Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 866 F.2d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir. 1989)
(denying fees under Freedom of Information Act based on public
policy goal of encouraging pro se plaintiffs to retain
independent legal counsel); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Attleboro Pub.
Sch., 960 F. Supp. 2d 286, 300 (D. Mass. 2013) (denying fees
under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to pro se
plaintiffs).
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that his operative complaint was
amended “regarding damages in order for the matter to be sent
back to state court.” Dkt. 113 at 1. Plaintiff is estopped from
seeking more than $75,000 on remand.
The Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims at issue in this case where the
remaining amount in controversy falls far below the
jurisdictional limit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

3

Case 1:17-cv-11449-PBS Document 114 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 4

This matter is REMANDED to Essex County Superior Court for
further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
Hon. Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge

4