JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Raybould

Filing 9

Order: As this court lacks jurisdiction, this matter is REMANDED to state court. The clerk is directed to mail a certified copy of this remand order to the clerk of Lane County Circuit Court. Signed on 8/4/2015 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, its successors in interest
And/or assigns,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01333-MC
ORDER

DIANE RAYBOULD, et al.

Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Defendants Diane and Dennis Raybould seek to remove this judicial foreclosure action
filed in state court by JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association. ECF No. 1. Defendants also
move for a more definite statement, arguing the complaint is unclear, ambiguous, and
contradictory. ECF No. 2. The motion for a more definite statement is DENIED. The complaint
is neither unclear, ambiguous, nor contradictory. It clearly alleges the Rayboulds defaulted on a
promissory note secured by a deed of trust and plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the deed of trust.
1 –ORDER

STANDARDS
Any civil action brought in a state court of which a federal district court would have
original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or defendants to the federal court of the
district and division where such action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A civil action otherwise
removable solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship may not be removed if any of the
defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Even
if the defendant intends to present a defense or counterclaim that invokes federal law, “a
defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that
the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (emphasis in original).
Procedurally, a defendant seeking to remove a state court action must attach the state
court pleadings to the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be
remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs
and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. Id.
DISCUSSION
The Rayboulds reside in Oregon. Therefore, they may not remove a case filed in Oregon
state court to federal court based solely on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
The Rayboulds appear to argue that the judicial foreclosure claim is a claim under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. I disagree. This argument appears to stem from the Notice plaintiff
served on the Rayboulds notifying them that under the FDCPA, this judicial foreclosure action is
an attempt to collect a debt. See ECF 1-1. The sole claim, however, is a claim arising under state
law for judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust. See Complaint, § VII. Thus, this court lacks federal
2 –ORDER

question jurisdiction over the complaint. And because the Rayboulds reside in Oregon, they may
not remove this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
As this court lacks jurisdiction, this matter is REMANDED to state court. The clerk is
directed to mail a certified copy of this remand order to the clerk of Lane County Circuit Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2015.

______/s/ Michael J. McShane________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

3 –ORDER