Boudreaux v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; remanding case (terminates case) ; granting 9 Motion to Remand (kjp, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL BOUDREAUX,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
Case No. 16-CV-579-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the Motion for Remand of plaintiff Paul Boudreaux (“Boudreaux”)
[Dkt. # 9]. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Boudreaux’s motion.
I. Procedural Background
This dispute arises from allegedly improper withdrawals from Boudreaux’s checking
account by defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). Boudreaux, a Tulsa attorney, claims
that BANA wrongfully collected $200 per month for a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”)
that had been released. He filed suit in Oklahoma state court on March 9, 2016, for breach of
contract, negligence, and fraud; his Petition requests “actual damages in excess of $10,000” and
punitive damages. [Dkt. #2-3, p. 2]. BANA removed the case to this court on September 6,
2016. Boudreaux now seeks a remand.
II. Legal Standard
22 U.S.C. § 1441(a) authorizes removal of any action subject to a district court’s original
jurisdiction—for instance, where a suit involves citizens of different states and the “amount in
controversy” exceeds $75,000. Treat v. Thermoguard Equip. Inc., No. 08-CV-318-GKF-PJC,
2008 WL 4453104, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2008). The amount in controversy “must be
affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or the removal notice.” Laughlin v.
Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) abrogated on other grounds by Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547 (2014). And supporting jurisdictional facts
must be proven “by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’” McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947,
953 (10th Cir. 2008).
“[W]here a state court complaint does not identify a specific amount that the plaintiff
seeks to recover, the burden is on a defendant seeking removal to demonstrate that . . . the
amount in controversy exceeds the statutory requirement.” McPhail, 529 F.3d at 955; accord
Treat, 2008 WL 4453104, at *1. To that end, a defendant may rely on the complaint,
“interrogatories obtained in state court,” and “affidavits or other evidence submitted in federal
court.” McPhail, 529 F.3d at 955–56. “[A] plaintiff’s proposed settlement is [also] relevant
evidence of the amount in controversy if” a reasonable appraisal of plaintiff’s claim. Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Once a defendant has shown jurisdictional facts that support federal subject matter
jurisdiction, the burden “shifts to the plaintiff seeking remand.” Balog v. Jeff Bryan Transport
LTD, No. CIV-10-505-D, 2010 WL 3075288, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2010). “To show a
basis for remand, the plaintiff must prove” the amount in controversy is “less than $75,000” as a
“legal certainty.” See id. Nevertheless, all “doubts [must] be resolved against removal.”
Wormuth v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 06-CV-552-GKF-SAL, 2007 WL 1500113, at
*1 (N.D. Okla. May 21, 2007). “[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and
“[r]emoval statutes are to be strictly construed.” See id.
2
III. Analysis
Boudreaux argues that because the value of his suit does not exceed $75,000, the court
lacks jurisdiction over his claims.1 BANA replies that Boudreaux’s Petition expressly and
implicitly asks the court to determine the validity of a HELOC valued at approximately $80,000.
For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion for remand.
First, BANA argues Boudreaux “demands a declaration . . . that the [$80,000] HELOC is
extinguished.” [Dkt. #2, p. 2, ¶ 4. Not so. Boudreaux seeks neither declaratory relief nor an
order determining the enforceability or value of the HELOC. [Dkt. #2-3, p. 2]; [Dkt. # 9, p. 2, ¶
4] (“Plaintiff does not seek a declaration of any kind from the Court, concerning a home equity
line of credit, for which Bank of America filed a release long ago, or concerning any other
matter.”). And BANA concedes as much. [Dkt. #2-7, p. 2] (“[Y]our Petition does not appear to
assert claims for . . . quiet title or a declaration extinguishing the HELOC[.]”). Instead,
Boudreaux requests damages for allegedly improper bank withdrawals under state common law.
[Dkt. #2-3, p. 2]; [Dkt. # 9, p. 2, ¶ 4]. Accordingly, “[t]he [c]ourt need not”—and will not—
“construe [Boudreaux’s] pleading as a request for” declaratory relief.” See Hoodye v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:12-CV-402, 2013 WL 672567, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2013)
(remanding where enforceability of lien was not part of relief requested); Tatevossian v. Wells
Fargo Bank, No. CV 16-03135-AB (MRWx), 2016 WL 4367235, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12,
2016) (remanding where defendant “neglect[ed] to properly identify the relief sought in the
complaint” and plaintiff disclaimed intention to pursue declaratory judgment)
Second, BANA argues this lawsuit “implicitly requires” a finding that the HELOC is
extinguished. [Dkt. #2, p. 4, ¶ 11]. Even if that is the case, such a finding would merely “go to
1
Boudreaux also contends that BANA’s notice of removal was untimely. Because the court
finds jurisdiction lacking, it need not consider Boudreaux’s timeliness claim.
3
the merits of [Boudreaux’s] claims and [BANA’s] defenses.” Cf. Bardwell v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, No. 3:11-CV-1002-B, 2011 WL 4346328, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2011)
(emphasis added). “Amount in controversy,” by contrast, refers to the relief requested, not
supporting findings of fact. See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “amount in
controversy” as “[t]he damages claimed or relief demanded by the injured party in a lawsuit”);
14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3702.5 (4th ed. 2016). Indeed,
“[t]he collateral estoppel effect” of any finding, “even if measureable, cannot be relied upon to
augment the value of the right in dispute.” Cate v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 434
F.Supp. 1187, 1189 (E.D. Tenn. 1977); see also Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 267 (1934)
(“[T]he collateral effect of [a] decree, by virtue of stare decisis, upon other and distinct
controversies, may not be considered in ascertaining whether the jurisdictional amount is
involved, even though their decision turns on the same question of law.”); New England Mortg.
Sec. Co. v. Gay, 145 U.S. 123, 130 (1892) (collecting cases) (“[W]hen our jurisdiction depends
upon the amount in controversy, it is determined by the amount involved in the particular case,
and not by any contingent loss either one of the parties may sustain by the probative effect of the
judgment[.]”); Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Cole, No. CIV-15-312-D, 2015 WL 4395023, at * (W.D.
Okla. July 16, 2015) (“‘[W]hatever collateral effects a decree or judgment might have by virtue
of stare decisis[ ] [or] collateral estoppel . . . those consequences cannot be taken into account in
calculating the amount in controversy.’” (quoting 14 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure § 3702.5)).
In this way, BANA confuses relief requested with factual determinations supporting that
relief—the former bears on jurisdiction, the latter on the merits of Boudreaux’s claim. Cf.
Bardwell, 2011 WL 4346328, at *2 (finding existence of valid claim for debt or lien affects
4
merits, not jurisdictional, inquiry). Based on its settlement correspondence, BANA appears to
appreciate the difference. [Dkt. #2-7, p. 2] (“[Y]our Petition does not appear to assert claims for
. . . quiet title or a declaration extinguishing the HELOC . . . As such, even if you were to prevail
in this action, you would not be able to obtain the release of the HELOC[.]”). So, “[w]hile the
action may ultimately have the indirect effect of contributing to the elimination of a cloud on [ ]
title,” the lien “is not the object of this suit.” See Hoodye v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL
672567, at *4.
The caselaw cited by BANA is not to the contrary. Unlike Boudreaux’s claim, Warner v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., 533 Fed. App’x 813, 816 (10th Cir. 2013), involved an explicit request for
“ownership” of certain property—relief fairly characterized as “‘a judgment that CitiMortgage
ha[d] no interest, estate, or claim of any kind whatsoever in the [p]roperty.’” Warner, 533 Fed.
App’x at 816. Put differently, Warner plainly involved a request to quiet title. See id. No such
request is present here. Instead, Boudreaux seeks, at most, a factual determination that the
HELOC was released. And again, BANA acknowledges as much. See [Dkt. #10, p. 5]
(explaining Boudreaux “sought a factual determination that the HELOC, a lien in excess of
$75,000, was extinguished.”) (emphasis added). Properly viewed, then, the “objective” of
Boudreaux’s suit “is damages,” likely measured between $5,000, [Dkt. #2-6, p. 2] (settlement
correspondence), and in excess of $10,000, [Dkt. #2-3, p. 3] (petition), which is insufficient to
reach the jurisdictional threshold. Hoodye, 2013 WL 672567, at 4. Accordingly, remand is
proper. See id.; Tatevossian, 2016 WL 4367235, at *3.
In closing, a word of caution. The court remands this case “with the understanding that
[Boudreaux] will continue to adhere to [his] disclaimer of any intent to pursue any relief in
excess of the jurisdictional threshold.” See Bogan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:14-cv-
5
01484-CAS(VBKx), 2014 WL 1315891, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014). “Should this
understanding prove incorrect—if, for example, [Boudreaux] seek[s] . . . declaratory relief that
would invalidate the entirety” of the HELOC—“it may be[come] necessary for this [c]ourt to
revisit the question of its subject matter jurisdiction.” See id. For now, however, the court finds
that BANA cannot establish an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.
WHEREFORE, Boudreaux’s Motion for Remand [Dkt. #9] is granted. His request for
fees, costs, and sanctions is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2016.
6
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?