Germain et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand 12 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) by Friday, January 29, 2016. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/14/2016. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

GERARD GERMAIN and
THERESA M. GERMAIN,
Plaintiffs,

v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY and
ARGENT SECURITIES, INC.,1
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1674 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 12)
Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities, Inc., AssetBacked Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W2 (“Deutsche Bank”) filed its response on
December 28, 2015. (Doc. No. 16) Plaintiffs did not file a reply. The motion is therefore fully
briefed and ready for disposition.
Background
On September 24, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title against Deutsche Bank in
the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Case No. 1511-CC00812. In the Petition, Plaintiffs
allege that on or about June 15, 1999, they purchased real property known and numbered as 5191
Rosemount Drive, St. Charles, Missouri 63304 (“the Property”). (Petition, Doc. No. 5 at ¶ 6) The
Property was sold by Trustee’s sale to Deutsche Bank on May 21, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 7) According to
Plaintiffs, they filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on May 21, 2014, prior to
1

According to Deutsche Bank, its correct name is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W2.

1

completion of the Trustee’s sale, which created an automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.
(Id. at ¶¶ 8-10) Plaintiffs contend the sale of the Property on May 21, 2014 was in violation of
the automatic stay and thus void. (Id. at ¶ 12) Deutsche Bank removed the case to this Court on
November 6, 2015 based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, and 1441.
(Doc. No. 1) On November 23, 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 8) On December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to
state court, but never filed a response to Deutsche Bank’s motion.
Legal Standard
Federal courts have original jurisdiction where the parties are citizens of different states
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiffs do not
dispute diversity of the parties, but argue that the amount in controversy requirement has not
been met. Where, as here, the underlying complaint does not specify an exact amount of
damages, the removing party bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. See James Neff Kramper Family Farm
P’ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 831 (8th Cir. 2005). More precisely, the defendant must show
by a preponderance of the evidence that a fact finder “might legally conclude” that damages
exceed the jurisdictional limit. Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F .3d 935, 944 (8th Cir.
2012); Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002). This burden “constitutes a pleading
requirement, not a demand for proof[,]” id. at 945 (internal quotation marks omitted), although
facts outside of the pleadings may be used for additional support. Yaeger v. Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc., 4:14-CV-795-JCH, 2014 WL 3130119, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 8, 2014).

2

Discussion
“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount
in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Drake v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., No. 11-00581-CV-W-DW, 2011 WL 10795515, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2011). See
also Crowder v. Avelo Mortg., LLC, No. 4:14-CV-1351-RLW, 2014 WL 4915149, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Usery v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 606 F.3d 1017, 1018-19 (8th
Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs’ petition is not styled as a petition for
declaratory judgment; however, Plaintiffs are essentially seeking declaratory relief by way of a
court order finding they are the owners of the Property. Drake, 2011 WL 10795515, at *2. Thus,
the Court finds that the amount in controversy must be established by determining the value of
the object of the litigation. To determine the value, the Court “must determine what the property
interest at issue is worth in the marketplace, which is a matter of objective fact.” Crowder, 2014
WL 4915149, at *2 (quoting Usery, 606 F .3d at 1019; Portillo v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc.,
CIV. 13–2370 DWF/JSM, 2014 WL 1431394, at *3, n. 3 (D. Minn. Apr. 14, 2014)).
Deutsche Bank asserts the appropriate measure of the amount in controversy is the
amount of the loan or the value of the Property. (Doc. No. 16 at 4-5) Plaintiffs argue they have
not attempted to challenge the promissory note or deed of trust in favor of Deutsche Bank (Doc.
No. 12 at ¶ 11) and that the property interest at issue “is the value of the Plaintiffs’ real property
interest ($242,000.00) less the security interest created by the deed of trust and promissory note
($202,000.00)” (id. at ¶ 13; Affidavit of Theresa Germain, Doc. No. 12-1 at ¶¶ 2-3), i.e., their
equity in the Property. Plaintiffs provide no support for their position and, as Deutsche Bank
correctly points out, courts have rejected the notion that equity in the property is an appropriate

3

measure of the “right at issue.” See Drake, 2011 WL 10795515, and Crowder, 2014 WL
4915149.
The Court finds Deutsche Bank has met its burden to demonstrate the amount in
controversy. Based on the objective evidence, the Property’s appraised value is $242,000.00.
(Residential Appraisal Report, Doc. No. 12-2) According to Plaintiffs, the current unpaid balance
of the loan is approximately $202,000.00. (Affidavit of Theresa Germain, Doc. No. 12-1 at ¶ 2)
“Whether the value of the object of the litigation is construed to be the value of the loan as set
forth in the note or the value of the property, that amount exceeds $75,000.” Drake, 2011 WL
10795515, at *2. The Court finds therefore that the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [12] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) by Friday, January 29, 2016.

Dated this 14th day of January, 2016.

__________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4