Clark v. M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. et al.
Filing
27
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Selene Finance LP's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 8 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff' ;s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13 -1) is deemed filed as of 9/22/2015. Defendant Christiana Trust's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff 039;s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 22 ) is granted. Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc.'s Motion for Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (ECF No. 24 ) is denied. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/23/2015. (JLG) Modified text on 9/23/2015 (JLG).
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
SELENE FINANCE, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:14CV2014
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF Nos. 8, 13, 21,
22, and 24]
I.
This action is before the Court upon Defendant Selene Finance LP’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 8) and
Defendant Christiana Trust’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21).
For the reasons set forth in Section VII below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied
as moot.
II.
This action is also before the Court upon Plaintiff Daniel Clark’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff attached the proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No.
13-1) to his motion. The Court has reviewed the memorandum in support and has read the file.
For the reasons set forth in Section VI below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted without
opposition.
(4:14CV2014)
III.
In addition, this action is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No.
22). The Court has reviewed the memorandum in support and Defendant M&M Mortgage
Services, Inc.’s Response (ECF No. 23), and has read the file. Defendant M&M Mortgage
Services, Inc. attached a proposed Order (ECF No. 23-1) to its Response.1
For the reasons set forth in Section VIII below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
IV.
Finally, this action is before the Court upon Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc.’s
Motion for Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (ECF No. 24).
The Court has reviewed the memorandum in support, Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition
(ECF No. 25), and reply memorandum (ECF No. 26), and has read the file.
For the reasons set forth in Section IX below, an award of costs and fees is not warranted
in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
1
The proposed Order (ECF No. 23-1) provides for granting Plaintiff’s Motions
for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13) and to Remand (ECF No. 22), and
remanding the case to state court with the following finding:
In order to preserve the defendants’ right to litigate matters within this
Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court, the Court finds that the
plaintiff’s representations and judicial admissions, as set forth in the
plaintiff’s motion and amended complaint, bars the plaintiff from seeking
more than [$71,500], exclusive of interest and costs, after remand to the
state court.
ECF No. 23-1.
2
(4:14CV2014)
V.
The Complaint (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 8-12) in the above-entitled action, asserting
two claims that sound in tort under Ohio common law, was filed in the Mahoning County, Ohio
Court of Common Pleas, being Case No. 2014 CV 01874, on July 30, 2014. The claims stem
from the securing of Plaintiff’s property after he defaulted on his mortgage obligations.2 Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. was hired to provide mortgage field
services by the mortgagee or servicer. Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc., at the behest of
Defendant Selene Finance, LP and/or Defendant Christiana Trust, allegedly trespassed upon
Plaintiff’s real property and converted his personal property, including his tools of trade. ECF
No. 25 at PageID #: 100-101 and 103. Count One for trespass sought compensatory and
consequential damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages for an unspecified amount to
be determined at trial. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 10. Count Two for conversion also sought
compensatory and consequential damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages for an
unspecified amount to be determined at trial. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 11.
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc., with the consent of Defendant Selene Finance,
LP, removed this case to this Court on September 10, 2014, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant Christiana Trust was subsequently served, see Waiver of the Service of Summons
2
In May 2012, JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a foreclosure case against Daniel
Clark. See JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Daniel Clark, et al., Case No. 2012 CV 01518
(Mahoning Cty Ct. of Common Pleas filed May 21, 2012). ECF No. 25 at PageID #: 100.
Mr. Clark is represented by the same attorney in both the foreclosure case and the case at
bar.
3
(4:14CV2014)
(ECF No. 18) and also consented to the removal, see Response to Court Order Dated October 2,
2014 (ECF No. 19).
VI. Leave to Amend Complaint
The seminal Supreme Court case addressing the issue of amount in controversy and
diversity jurisdiction is St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938). The
Court held that “[t]he 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.” Id. at 288. The Court went on to specify that once a federal district court’s
jurisdiction has attached to a case removed from state court, a plaintiff cannot deprive the district
court of jurisdiction by reducing his claim below the requisite jurisdictional amount “by
stipulation, by affidavit, or by amendment of his pleadings.” Id. at 292. “Because jurisdiction is
determined as of the time of removal, events occurring after removal that reduce the amount in
controversy do not oust jurisdiction.” Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th
Cir. 2000). However, if the complaint was ambiguous as to the true amount in controversy at the
time of removal, the district court may allow the plaintiff to clarify the factual basis because
Plaintiffs’ claims never satisfied the jurisdictional requirement from the outset. See Jones v.
Knox Exploration Corp., 2 F.3d 181, 183 (6th Cir. 1993) (“A distinction must be made [ ]
between subsequent events that change the amount in controversy and subsequent revelations
that, in fact, the required amount was or was not in controversy at the commencement of the
action.” ).
4
(4:14CV2014)
Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 8-12) to specify the
amount of actual damages sought now that they are known. See ECF No. 25 at 101-102.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to amend his demand on Count One for trespass to $2,000 for
compensatory and consequential damages and punitive damages for an amount to be determined
at trial, but not to exceed $20,000;and on Count Two for conversion to $4,500 for compensatory
and consequential damages and punitive damages for an amount to be determined at trial, but not
to exceed $45,000. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 54; ECF No. 25 at PageID #: 102. Together
Plaintiff’s claims amount to $71,500.
For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13)
is granted without opposition. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13-1) is deemed filed
as of today, September 22, 2015.
VII. Motions to Dismiss
Defendant Selene Finance LP’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 8) and Defendant Christiana Trust’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 21) predate the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13-1), which supersedes the
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID #: 8-12) to which the motions are directed. See Clark v.
Johnston, 413 Fed.Appx. 804, 811 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 6 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2010) (stating that “[a] pleading that has
been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies” and that “[o]nce an
amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the
case”)); see also Drake v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 266 Fed.Appx. 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008)
5
(4:14CV2014)
(stating that a prior “complaint is a nullity, because an amended complaint [supersedes] all prior
complaints”).
Accordingly, Defendant Selene Finance LP’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 8) and Defendant Christina Trust’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) are denied without prejudice because they are moot due to the
filing of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13-1). See Calvert v. GNC Corp., No. 4:13CV1697
(N.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2013) (Pearson, J.).
VIII. Remand
“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(c).
Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and “each
defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (emphasis in original); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).3 “To ensure that
diversity jurisdiction does not flood the federal courts with minor disputes, § 1332(a) requires
3
Despite the issuance of five (5) Orders, see ECF Nos. 7 at PageID #: 37, 9, 11,
14, and 16, Phillip C. Barragate, counsel for Defendant Selene Finance, LP, has still not
identified the citizenship of all of the members of Defendant Selene Finance, LP.
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. states:
In the case at bar, jurisdiction has not attached, as evidenced by the
ongoing proceedings regarding the citizenship issues of Defendant Selene
Finance, LP’s members. The plaintiff’s original complaint was ambiguous
as to the amount in controversy, which he now seeks to clarify with his
proposed amended complaint. The plaintiff’s proposed clarification would
defeat diversity jurisdiction itself and eliminate the need to go through the
citizenship analysis of Selene Finance, LP’s owners.
ECF No. 23 at PageID #: 88 n.1.
6
(4:14CV2014)
that the matter in controversy in a diversity case exceed a specified amount, currently $75,000.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (emphasis added). See
also Freeland v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 632 F.3d 250, 252-53 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that as
a matter of apparent first impression, Congress has chosen to withhold jurisdiction from the
federal courts over a suit between citizens of two different states unless the amount in
controversy is at least one penny more than $75,000). Thus, the minimum requirement is an
amount “in excess of $75,000.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. . . .”) (emphasis added).
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. “does not oppose in principal” Plaintiff’s
decision to specify the amount of damages sought is less than “the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.” ECF No. 24 at PageID #: 93. It explicates that it
recognizes that the limitation that the plaintiff has imposed upon his own claim
for damages likely destroys this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the
parties remain of completely diverse citizenship, the amount in controversy no
longer exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). As such, should the Court
permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint to include this limitation, M&M
Mortgage Services, Inc. recognizes that remand to the Mahoning County Court of
Common Pleas is a necessary consequence of the plaintiff’s amendment.
ECF No. 23 at PageID #: 87-88 (footnote omitted).
The amount-in-controversy threshold was not met at the time of removal. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand (ECF No. 22) is, therefore, granted. This case will be remanded to the
Mahoning County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) upon the
7
(4:14CV2014)
grounds that the matter in controversy does not exceed “the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.”
IX. Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. requests an award “in excess of $9,500” for the
costs incurred in making a federal case out of the matter by removing it from state court. ECF
No. 24 at PageID #: 93; ECF No. 26 at PageID #: 106. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[a]n order
remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney
fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” See Shooter Const. Co., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Ins.
Services USA, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-181, 2011 WL 6339680, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2011)
(recommending that the words “incurred as a result of the removal” mean any costs that would
not have occurred “but for” the removal), 2011 WL 6370061 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2011)
(adopting report and recommendation of the magistrate judge without objection). “[A] finding of
an improper purpose is not necessary to support an award under [28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)]” upon
remand. Morris v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 985 F.2d 238, 240 (6th Cir. 1993). Section
1447(c) assigns the district court the discretion whether to award costs and attorney fees. See
Stallworth v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth., 105 F.3d 252, 258 (6th Cir. 1997).
“Although awards to defendants will undoubtedly be rare, we find their authorization in the
broad language of Congress’s amendment to § 1447(c).” Shrader v. Legg Mason Wood Walker,
Inc., 880 F. Supp. 366, 370 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Throughout its briefing, Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. makes the bold
argument that it was “forced” to take the actions it has taken in the case at bar. ECF No. 26 at
8
(4:14CV2014)
PageID #: 108 and 109. When Plaintiff refused to stipulate that his damages would not exceed
“the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” Defendant M&M Mortgage
Services, Inc. was “forced to remove the case” to federal court. ECF No. 24 at PageID #: 96. It
was “forced to incur” costs and expenses, including attorney fees, as a result of the removal.
ECF No. 24 at PageID #: 92, 94, and 96; ECF No. 26 at PageID #: 108 and 110. All of the costs
and expenses are solely due to being “forced to proceed” in federal court. ECF No. 26 at PageID
#: 108.
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. is mistaken. It had a choice to leave the case
pending in the Mahoning County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, a court of general jurisdiction,4
or to remove it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a court of
limited jurisdiction.5 Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. chose to remove the case to this
Court before ascertaining the citizenship of all of the members of Defendant Selene Finance, LP.
The Court will not reward Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. for its own choice to
4
The Ohio Supreme Court “has long held that the court of common pleas is a
court of general jurisdiction, with subject-matter jurisdiction that extends to ‘all matters at
law and in equity that are not denied to it.’” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d
75, 80 (2014) (quoting Saxton v. Seiberling, 48 Ohio St. 554, 558-59 (1891)). Ohio Rev.
Code § 2305.01 provides that, except as stated in Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.03, “the court
of common pleas has original jurisdiction in all civil cases in which the sum or matter in
dispute exceeds the exclusive original jurisdiction of county courts . . . .” “[C]ounty
courts have exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of sums not
exceeding five hundred dollars and original jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of
sums not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars.” Ohio Rev. Code § 1907.03. The case at
bar falls within the monetary jurisdiction of the common pleas court.
5
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law “presume[s] that a
cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
9
(4:14CV2014)
remove the case at bar to federal court “to protect its interests” when complete diversity has not
been shown to exist between Plaintiff and all Defendants. ECF No. 24 at PageID #: 92 and 96.
Especially when Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc. admits “jurisdiction has not
attached.” ECF No. 23 at PageID #: 88 n.1.
X. Conclusion
Defendant Selene Finance LP’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 13) is granted.
Defendant Christiana Trust’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 22) is granted.
Defendant M&M Mortgage Services, Inc.’s Motion for Costs, Expenses, and Attorneys’
Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (ECF No. 24) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 23, 2015
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
10
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?