Hunter v. Midland Mortgage

Filing 15

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Set Aside Judgment, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 9/9/16. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND MORTGAGE, a division of
MIDFIRST BANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV-15-1266-R

ORDER
The Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s action against MidFirst Mortgage wherein
she sought injunctive and declaratory relief on December 7, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). She alleged in her Complaint that Defendant has provided information to
persons posing as Plaintiff with regard to payoff of her mortgage. She contends that third
parties are attempting to steal her home, located in Virginia, in an attempt to collect on a void
and fraudulent judgment entered against her in the amount of $10,000,000 in a Florida state
court. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Relief from the Court’s Order, arguing therein that the
Court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because
Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support an amount in controversy sufficient to permit the
Court to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Court concluded
in its prior order that although Plaintiff properly pled that she and Defendant are of diverse
citizenship, there were no factual allegations to support her contention that the $75,000.00

amount in controversy requirement has been met. Plaintiff had not requested damages, but
rather states:
Hunter moves for the issuance of a declaratory judgment and a permanent
injunction that explicitly enjoins the Respondent from communicating with
any third party or accepting any communications or documents from any third
party regarding Hunter's loan or Hunter's house without Hunter's explicit
written approval and such written approval must be received with Hunter's
original signature and said signature must be affixed to said written approval
in the presence of a notary. In addition, the injunction shall enjoin the
Respondent from accepting money, checks, wire transfers, and any and all
other types of currency from any third party as payment toward Hunter's loan
without the same written approval and such written approval must be received
with Hunter's original signature and said signature must be affixed to said
written approval in the presence of a notary.
Complaint, pp. 9-10. The Court concluded that based on her allegations it could not
anticipate that the cost to Defendant of providing the relief sought would exceed $75,000.00.
See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). Plaintiff
challenges the Court’s conclusion in this regard, asserting that the fact that the property at
issue, that is the property to which the loan is attached, is valued in excess of $100,000.00.
Despite this information, however, the Court is unable to conclude that it erred in its
conclusion that providing Plaintiff the relief sought would exceed $75,000.00. Furthermore,
although Plaintiff contends the Court failed to address her constitutional concerns, the prior
Order dismissing this action correctly notes that Plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action.
Plaintiff pled no facts that would enable her to hold the Bank, a private entity, responsible
for allegedly violating her constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief
is hereby DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2016.

3