Jarchow v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRENDA JARCHOW,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-11925
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 7, 2014
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket #17). Defendant
filed a timely response to the Motion. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments pertinent
to the Motion to Remand are adequately presented in the parties’ papers, and the decision process
will not be aided by oral arguments. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2), it is
hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Remand be resolved on the briefs submitted, without this
Court entertaining oral arguments.

II. BACKGROUND
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay state court proceedings and enjoin any
attempts of Defendants to remove, evict or eject Plaintiff from a home she has owned in Jackson,

Michigan, since 1995 (the “Property), including ruling the foreclosure of mortgage by advertisement
that has occurred to be ineffective, invalid and wrongful. The Property was sold at a foreclosure sale
on September 12, 2012 for $75,595.82. The state equalized value of the Property for 2012 was
$64,410.00.

III. ANALYSIS
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a non-federal question case or
controversy when the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
§1332. There is no dispute that the parties in this matter are diverse. Plaintiff, however, maintains
that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 because she is seeking injunctive relief
pursuant to Michigan statutes. Plaintiff acknowledges that, absent a specific monetary claim, the
“amount in controversy should be measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Hunt v.
Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions otherwise, the object of the litigation is the Property.
Though Plaintiff seeks to frame the issues of the litigation in terms of alleged procedural deficiencies
by Defendants with respect to the foreclosure, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not simply seeking
injunctive relief from those procedural deficiencies. Rather, the “object of the litigation” is to ensure
that Plaintiff can retain the Property– because of those procedural deficiencies. Thus, despite the
fact that Plaintiff may only be seeking consequential monetary damages, the value of the Property
is relevant and necessary in determining the amount in controversy. As the Property sold for more
than $75,000 and has an estimated cash value of over $120,000 (as the state equalized value of
$64,410.00 is considered to be approximately half of the Property’s cash value), the Court finds that
the value of the object of the litigation exceeds $75,000.
2

Based on the foregoing facts and determinations, the Court finds that Defendants have met
their burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, as the
elements necessary for diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332 have been satisfied, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Remand (Docket #17).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 7, 2014

3