Cortez v. Merscorp Holdings Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/20/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

PRISCILLA SANTOS CORTEZ,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6
7
8

MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, INC.; and
DOES 1-20 inclusive,
Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01048-GMN-NJK
ORDER

10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) filed by Plaintiff Priscilla

11
12

Santos Cortez (“Plaintiff”). Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), erroneously

13

named Nationstar Mortgage, Inc., and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (“MERSCORP”) filed a

14

Response (ECF No. 11). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is

15

DENIED.

16

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from the attempted foreclosure proceedings against real property located

17
18

at 1020 Zurich Ave., Henderson, Nevada 89015 (“Property”). (Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1-2).

19

Plaintiff alleges that she obtained the Property through deed of trust in 2006 (Id. ¶ 8), and

20

Defendants “had no right to foreclose on the [Property] because the underlying security

21

instruments in which Defendants relied on are invalid, void and unenforceable, and the

22

Defendants themselves have violated Nevada procedure for non-judicial foreclosure.” (Id. 6:8–

23

14).

24
25

Plaintiff filed an action in state court, asserting the following claims: (1) Breach of
Contract; (2) Breach of Contract (Assignment); (3) Violations of NRS 107.080(2); and (4)

Page 1 of 3

1

Declaratory Relief. (Id. ¶¶ 20–58). Shortly thereafter, Defendants removed the case to this

2

Court (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1), and Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant Motion to

3

Remand (ECF No. 7).

4

II.

5

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers granted by

6

the Constitution and by statute. See United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008)

7

(citation omitted). For this reason, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the

8

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

9

District courts have jurisdiction in two instances. First, district courts have subject matter

10

jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, district

11

courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where no plaintiff is a citizen of the

12

same state as a defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

13

If a plaintiff files a civil action in state court, the defendant may remove that action to a

14

federal district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1441(a). Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Ritchey v.

16

UpJohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected

17

if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564,

18

566 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

19

1979)). The defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus, 980

20

F.2d at 566.

21

III.

22

DISCUSSION
In their Notice of Removal, Defendants assert that “this Court has jurisdiction under 28

23

U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship … and the amount in

24

controversy exceeds $75,000.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 3, ECF No. 1).

25

The Complaint states that Plaintiff is a resident of California. (Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1-2).

Page 2 of 3

1

Additionally, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants’ assertion that Nationstar is organized under

2

the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas and MERSCORP is organized

3

under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia. (Notice of Removal

4

¶ 5–6). Therefore, the Court finds that there is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §

5

1332(a).

6

Regarding the amount in controversy, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief from the Court

7

that “all security interests that have been claimed in the Subject Property are invalid and void.”

8

(Compl. 4:17–19, ECF No. 1-3). “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well

9

established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the

10

litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hunt v. Wash.

11

State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). In this case, the Deed of Trust attached

12

to the Complaint, which Plaintiff seeks to invalidate, secures a Note in the amount of

13

$405,150.00. (Ex. 1 to Compl. at 13, ECF 1-3). Accordingly, the amount in controversy

14

exceeds the statutory requirement of $75,000.

15

Further, removal of this action to federal district court was procedurally correct under 28

16

U.S.C. § 1446(a). Defendants filed a signed Notice of Removal with a short plain statement of

17

the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings and orders served upon

18

Defendants. (See Petition for Removal, ECF No. 1). The Petition for Removal was filed within

19

thirty days of the service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants, and the Petition

20

was served on the Plaintiff.

21

Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

22

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.

23

IV.

CONCLUSION

24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.

25

DATED this 20th day of October, 2014.

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
Page 3 of 3
United States District Court