Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lewis

Filing 18

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF 8 , is GRANTED. Additionally, plaintiff is awarded reasonable costs and fees incurred as a result of the improper removal. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed on 3/10/25 by Judge Adrienne Nelson. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 3/10/25.) (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
v.

Case No.: 3:25-cv-00099-AN

Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER

DOROTHY ELIZABETH LEWIS,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court
against self-represented defendant Dorothy Elizabeth Lewis, alleging forcible entry and wrongful detainer
claims pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 105.115, 105.110, and 105.123. Defendant removed this
case to this Court for the first time on October 8, 2024, and the Court remanded on November 12, 2024.
On January 17, 2025, defendant removed this case to this Court for the second time. On February 6, 2025,
plaintiff moved to remand again. After reviewing the parties' filings, the Court finds this matter appropriate
for decision without oral argument. Local R. 7-1(d). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff's motion is
GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD
A court must remand a removed action if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). Removal is only proper where the federal court would have had subject matter
jurisdiction over the case if the plaintiff had originally filed it in federal court. See Newman-Green, Inc. v.
Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989). A federal court's original jurisdiction must be based on either
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for "all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States[,]" or diversity jurisdiction over civil actions under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a), where the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000" and the action is between

1

"citizens of different States." The party invoking jurisdiction has the burden of establishing the court's
jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted).
"[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal." Luther v. Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). "A defendant seeking removal
has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability." Id.
(citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
A.

Remand to State Court
The Court must remand this case to state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

In the Notice of Removal at issue, defendant asserts that the Court has jurisdiction based on both federal
question and diversity jurisdiction. Defendant alleges that a violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment "has now arisen" and that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000 and the
suit is between citizens of different states. Notice of Removal, ECF [1], at 1.
Defendant has not demonstrated that removal was proper. First, plaintiff's complaint does
not establish federal question jurisdiction. Although defendant claims that there was "prejudicial action of
the State Court" and that the second removal was "within 30 days of a new incident that required a federal
answer[,]" Def. Resp. to Mot. to Remand, ECF [15], at 2, the Court must look only to the complaint in its
analysis. Review of the complaint reveals that the underlying action is an eviction action. Decl. Emilie K.
Edling Supp. Pl. Mots. to Remand & Award Fees, ECF [9], ¶ 2 & Ex. 1. Eviction is a state law claim over
which a federal court does not have jurisdiction. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Jacobson, 3:24-cv-00530-HZ, 2024
WL 2053632, at *2 (D. Or. Apr. 10, 2024). To the extent that defendant alleges a federal defense or
counterclaim, such defenses or counterclaims are not bases for this Court's jurisdiction. See Louisville &
Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 2024 WL 2053632, at *2
(collecting cases). Accordingly, defendant has not shown that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.
Second, plaintiff's complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. In the Notice of
Removal, defendant alleges that plaintiff has a principal place of business in South Dakota. However, the
2

underlying complaint neither establishes the parties' citizenships nor demonstrates that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, defendant has not established that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction.
B.

Costs and Fees
"An order remanding [a] case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Absent unusual
circumstances, a court may award costs and attorney's fees "only where the removing party lacked an
objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal." Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141
(2005).
Plaintiff's eviction complaint is based solely on Oregon law and lacks any allegations of
federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, this Court has already instructed defendant on two
separate occasions, including once in this very action, that her removals were improper because the
allegations in the underlying complaints did not support either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
See Lewis v. PHH Mortg. Corp., No. 3:24-cv-00978-AR, 2024 WL 3822806, at *2-3 (D. Or. July 3, 2024),
report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3822755 (D. Or. Aug. 14, 2024); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
v. Lewis, No. 3:24-cv-01712-AB, 2024 WL 4764363, at *1-2 (D. Or. Nov. 12, 2024). Nevertheless,
defendant removed this case to federal court for a second time, despite the absence of allegations in the
complaint establishing subject matter jurisdiction and despite the Court's clear prior ruling in this case on
November 12, 2024. Defendant lacks an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Accordingly,
and to deter future meritless removals by defendant, the Court awards plaintiff costs and fees incurred as a
result of the improper removal.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF [8], is
GRANTED. Additionally, plaintiff is awarded reasonable costs and fees incurred as a result of the improper
removal. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2025.
______________________
Adrienne Nelson
United States District Judge

4