Haynes et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
YOLANDA HAYNES and HOUSTON
HAYNES, III,
Plaintiffs,

Case Number 11-13858
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC. (MERS), and FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (Fannie Mae),
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
The matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court.
The defendants removed the case to federal court on September 2, 2011 on the ground that the
parties were completely diverse. The plaintiffs filed the present motion to remand arguing that the
matter belongs in state court because the defendants extensively conduct business in Michigan and
only questions of state law are at issue.
The federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing
jurisdiction rests with the defendant as the party removing the case and asserting federal jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “‘[A]ll doubts as
to the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand.’” Jacada (Europe), Ltd. v. Int’l Mktg.
Strategies, Inc., 401 F.3d 701, 704 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d
488, 493 (6th Cir. 1999)), abrogated on other grounds by Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552
U.S. 576 (2008).

Title 28, section 1441(a) of the United States Code permits defendants in civil actions to
remove cases originally filed in state courts to federal district courts where the district court would
have had original jurisdiction. Cases may be removed under federal question jurisdiction or on the
basis of diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The plaintiffs have not alleged a federal cause
of action in their complaint; therefore, removal is proper only if this Court would have had original
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
It is axiomatic that federal diversity jurisdiction exists only when “no plaintiff and no
defendant are citizens of the same state.” Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904,
907 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d
1085, 1089 (6th Cir. 1992)). Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship must exist “both at the
time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed.” Ibid. (citing
Easley v. Pettibone, 990 F.2d 905, 908 (6th Cir. 1993)).
In this case, the plaintiffs have alleged that they reside in Oakland County, Michigan. They
do not allege that they have any intention of leaving Michigan. Therefore, for the purpose of
determining diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs are considered citizens of Michigan. NewmanGreen, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989).
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank is a national banking association organized under the laws
of Ohio with its main office in Columbus, Ohio. For the purposes of establishing diversity,
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank is considered a citizen of Ohio. 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia
Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006) (“[O]ne would sensibly ‘locate’ a national bank for the
very same purpose, i.e., qualification for diversity jurisdiction, in the State designated in its articles
of association as its main office.”).

-2-

MERS is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Virginia.
For the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, MERS is considered a citizen of Delaware
and Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, --- U.S. ---, ---, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1186
(2010) (“[T]he phrase ‘principal place of business’ refers to the place where the corporation’s high
level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. . . . We believe that the
‘nerve center’ will typically be found at a corporation’s headquarters.”).
Fannie Mae is a federally chartered corporation with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. Accordingly, it is a citizen of the District of Columbia and is not a citizen of the
State of Michigan.
The Court finds that complete diversity between the parties existed at the time of removal,
and therefore, the case was removed to federal court properly. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand will
be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to remand [dkt #6] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 3, 2011

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on October 3, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-