FONTANA et al v. BANK OF AMERICA
Filing
18
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER remanding action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/14/2014. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGELA FONTANA and ALFRED
HOFSTADTER,
Docket No.: 14-1069-WJM-MF
Plaintiffs,
AMENDED OPINION and
ORDER OF REMAND
V.
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Pro se Plaintiffs initially filed this case in state court, and Defendant removed
to federal court on the grounds of both federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
1331, and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
§
§
1332. ECF. No. 1. Defendant then
filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on March
12, 2014. ECF. 9. Plaintiff opposed. ECF. No. 10.
On May 20, 2014, this court dismissed this case sua sponte for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. ECF. Nos. 15-16. The opinion accompanying the order of
dismissal found that there was no federal question jurisdiction based upon the fact
that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the only law articulated in the Complaint,
contains no private cause of action. ECF. No. 15. The court correctly dismissed the
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act claim because that statute has no private cause
of action. There was therefore no federal question to consider. However, the court
overlooked the question of diversity jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1332, the federal court may exercise diversity
jurisdiction where there is an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, and the
parties are citizens of different states. Where the district courts of the United States
have diversity jurisdiction over a complaint filed in state court, the defendant may
remove the case to the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§
1441. Diversity of citizenship
must have existed at the time the complaint was filed, and at the time of removal,
and the burden is on the removing party to establish federal jurisdiction. Johnson v.
S,nithKiine Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 346 (3d Cir. 2013). “If at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§
1447. Because lack of jurisdiction would
make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal
court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved
in favor of remand.
.
Johnson v. S,nithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d at 346.
The removing defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the amount in
controversy requirement has been met. See Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v.
Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995). (“A party who invokes the jurisdiction
of the federal courts has the burden of demonstrating the court’s jurisdiction.”). “In
removal cases, determining the amount in controversy begins with a reading of the
complaint filed in the state court.” Samuel-Bassett v. K[A Motors Am., Inc., 357
F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2004).
“The test for determining the amount in controversy in diversity cases was
established by the Supreme Court in St. Paul Mercuty Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab.
Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938).” Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995).
The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought
in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum
claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good
faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less
than the Jurisdictional amount to justi/j; dismissal. The inability of
plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction
does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.
But if, from the
face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff
cannot recover the amount claimed, or it from the proofs, the court is
satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to
recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the
purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.
.
.
.
Id. (citing Red Cab, 303 U.S. at 288-89; Jones v. Knox Exploration Corp., 2
F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 1993); Ehrenfeld v. Webber, 499 F. Supp. 1283, 1294 (D.
Me. 1980)).
The parties in this case are from different states: Plaintiffs are citizens of New
Jersey, and Defendant is a citizen of North Carolina. (Notice of Removal at ¶ 10)
The amount in controversy is not entirely clear from the Complaint.
Plaintiffs Complaint complains about the denial of a refinance mortgage, the value
3
of which he does not quantify. It also complains of unrelated late fees and interest
on other loans in the total amount of $231.77.
In support of its Notice of Removal, Defendant submitted a loan
security agreement, noting that the loan at issue was to be for $399,600.
While the inclusion of the loan security agreement may have made a
superficial case for an amount in controversy above $75,000, the Defendants
argued correctly that the Complaint, on its face, stated no cause of action
under which Plaintiffs could recover for the denial of the mortgage. Without
the viability of a claim based on the denial of the mortgage, the most the
Plaintiff could collect is legally certain: $231.77.
With the maximum amount the Plaintiff could recover legally certain
to be under $75,000 at the time of removal, Defendant has failed to meet its
burden of providing diversity jurisdiction. Red Cab, 303 U.S. at 288-89. In
the absence of a federal question and diversity, the court has no jurisdiction
and will accordingly remand. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1 367(c)(3). Therefore,
It is on this
/ 17”
day of July 2014 hereby
ORDERED that the case is hereby remanded to state court.
4
En
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?