Sealy et al v. Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 7 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/9/2016. (chh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-143-MOC-DCK
MICHAEL L. SEALY and SHELLY N. SEALY,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
FAY SERVICING, LLC; OCWEN MORTGAGE )
SERVICING, INC.; and CHRISTIANA TRUST, )
A DIVISION OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS
)
FUND SOCIETY, FSB,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiffs’ “Motion To Remand”
(Document No. 7) filed April 25, 2016. This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe for disposition. Having carefully
considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion.
Plaintiffs’ pending motion for remand notes that the Notice Of Removal was premised on
diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Document No. 7, p.1); see also
(Document No. 1). However, Plaintiffs contend that “[u]pon information and belief, there is not
complete diversity of citizenship of the parties.” (Document No. 7, p.2). Plaintiffs’ motion offers
little, if any, explanation for why they believe diversity is lacking in this case. (Document No. 7).
Defendants’ “…Response To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Remand” (Document No. 11) argues
that “Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is meritless.” (Document No. 11, p.1). Defendants appear to
construe the motion to remand as focusing on Fay Servicing, LLC, and citing an attached affidavit,
they assert that “no member of Fay Servicing, LLC is a resident of North Carolina.” (Document
No. 11, pp.1-2) (citing Document No. 11-1). Defendants further argue that “an LLC’s citizenship

is determined solely by the citizenship of all its members not by the state in which it is legally
organized or has its nerve center. (Document No. 11, p.4) (citing Zambellie Fireworks Mfg. v.
Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3rd Cir. 2010)).
Plaintiffs failed to file a reply brief, or notice of intent not to reply, as required by the Local
Rules. See Local Rule 7.1 (E). Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs failed to confer with
Defendants prior to filing their motion. See Local Rule 7.1 (B). If the parties had consulted it
seems likely that this issue could have been resolved without motions practice. In any event, it
appears that there is no support for Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion that there is not complete
diversity between these parties.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion To Remand” (Document No.
7) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 9, 2016

2