Smith v. Delta Funding Corporation et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 7 plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FELICIA SMITH, individually and as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Rena Johnson, a/k/a Renee Johnson,
dec’d & on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 15-CV-13387
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
v.
DELTA FUNDING CORP., WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Wells
Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee
f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as
Trustee for the registered holders of
Renaissance Home Equity Loan AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2004-1,
Advantage Investors Mortgage Corporation,
WAYNE COUNTY, MI SHERIFF and
WAYNE COUNTY, MI REGISTER OF
DEEDS,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. # 7)
Plaintiff Felicia Smith (“plaintiff”) filed a three-count complaint in Wayne County
Circuit Court, phrased as follows:
Count I-
Complaint To Set Aside Real Estate Mortgage Foreclosure Sale
Against Defendants Wells Fargo, Wayne County Sheriff & Wayne
County Register Of Deeds, Only
Count II-
Individual & Class Action Complaint For Damages For Violating The
Federal Fair Housing Act, The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
-1-
The Michigan Consumer Mortgage Protection Act And The Michigan
Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, And Servicers Licensing Act Against
Defendants Delta Funding, Advantage & Wells Fargo, Only
Count III-
Complaint For Modification Of Real Estate Mortgage Against
Defendant Wells Fargo, Only
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota,
N.A., as Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered
holders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-1
(“Trustee”), removed the action to this court. See (Doc. #1, Notice of Removal; Doc. #6,
Amended Notice of Removal). Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc.
#7). The court set a briefing schedule and dispensed with oral argument pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). The briefing is complete. For the reasons
that follow, the motion will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The Trustee removed this action on the basis of both original federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and complete diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. At the time the notice of removal and the amended notice of removal were filed, no
other defendants but the Trustee had been served. (Doc. #6 at 3).
Plaintiff contends that the remaining defendants were served with the state court
complaint, but offers no supporting proof. The Trustee attached a copy of the state court
docket as an exhibit to the notice of removal, and the docket does not show that any of the
defendants, including the Trustee, were ever served. (Doc. #1-3 at 2). In fact, the Trustee
-2-
says that it found out about this action when plaintiff’s counsel attached the lawsuit as an
exhibit in a state court eviction action, not through service of process. (Doc. #10 at 2).
Plaintiff seeks to remand to state court arguing (1) that the Trustee failed to seek
concurrence from the non-removing defendants who were properly served with the state
court complaint and (2) the Wayne County defendants were not fraudulently joined.
The Trustee opposes plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Trustee argues that consent
of the remaining defendants was not necessary because they had not been served at the
time of removal. In addition, the Trustee contends that the Wayne County defendants were
fraudulently joined, and, therefore, the Trustee was not required to obtain their consent
because their citizenship is disregarded for diversity purposes.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To determine whether an action is properly removed, the court looks to the
complaint at the time of removal. Ahearn v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield, 100 F.3d
451, 453 (6th Cir. 1996). “Removing defendants bear the burden of establishing federal
subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). District courts have original jurisdiction
“of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1331. For proper removal based on diversity of citizenship, the action must be
between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed “the sum
or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Consent of Non-Removing Defendants
First, plaintiff argues that this action must be remanded to state court because the
Trustee did not obtain the consent of the non-removing defendants who were properly
-3-
served in the state court action. As explained, the Trustee responds that it was not
required to obtain the consent of the non-removing defendants because, at the time the
action was removed, the non-removing defendants had not been served. The Trustee has
the better of the argument.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), when an action is removed from state court
to federal court, “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or
consent to the removal of the action.” “Failure to obtain unanimous consent forecloses the
opportunity for removal under Section 1446.” Loftis v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 342 F.3d
509, 516 (6th Cir. 2003). However, there are exceptions to the general rule that all
defendants must join or consent to the removal petition. These exceptions arise when “(1)
the non-joining defendant has not been served with service of process at the time the
removal petition is filed; (2) the non-joining defendant is merely a nominal or formal party;
and, (3) the removed claim is a separate and independent claim as defined by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(c). Klein v. Manor Healthcare Corp., 19 F.3d 1433, n.9 (6th Cir. 1994) (Table)
(citation omitted); Uppal v. Electronic Data Sys., 316 F.Supp.2d 531, 534 n.2 (E.D. Mich.
2004) (Cohn, J.).
Here, although plaintiff claims to have served the non-removing defendants, there
is no evidence that they were indeed served. In fact, nothing in the state court docket
shows that plaintiff served any of the defendants, including the Trustee. Nor does the
docket in this court show that any of the defendants have been served. Thus, the Trustee
is correct that it was not required to obtain the consent of the non-removing defendants at
the time of removal.
-4-
Plaintiff points out that she has now served the non-removing defendants, albeit
after the Trustee’s notice of removal, and, therefore, the Trustee must obtain their consent.
This argument does not have any merit. At the time the Trustee removed the action to this
court, the non-removing defendants had not been served. By the explicit terms of 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), therefore, the Trustee did not have to obtain the consent of the
non-removing defendants. Service of process on the non-removing defendants after the
Trustee removed gives those defendants the opportunity to contest the removal within 30
days after being served. See Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527,
532 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). But it does not affect the Trustee’s
already-filed removal petition.
B. Fraudulent Joinder
Next, the Trustee argues that the court should disregard the Wayne County
defendants’ citizenship when determining whether there is diversity of citizenship because
those defendants were fraudulently joined. Plaintiff responds that the Wayne County
defendants were not fraudulently joined and are necessary to providing plaintiff with the
relief requested in the compliant.
The court does not decide whether the Wayne County defendants were fraudulently
joined because, in addition to alleging diversity jurisdiction, the Trustee removed on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction. Count II of plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of
the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The court,
therefore, has original federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court
also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and additional parties pursuant
-5-
to 28 U.S.C. § 1337.
Accordingly, it does not matter whether the Wayne County
defendants were fraudulently joined. The court has subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2015
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
December 3, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk
-6-
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?