Smith et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Filing 172

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 3/13/2013. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

FREDERICK and DENISE SMITH
v.
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER,
et al.

)
)
) NO. 3-10-0800
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)

MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Realign Parties (Docket No. 154). For the
reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to realign the parties so that Defendants are Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
are Defendants. Plaintiffs assert that because Defendants are seeking affirmative relief through
foreclosure, Defendants are actually Plaintiffs who bear the burden of proof in this action. Plaintiffs
are incorrect.
The cases cited by Plaintiffs are cases in which parties were realigned for jurisdictional
purposes. For example, in City of Indianapolis v. Case National Bank of City of New York, 62 S.Ct.
15 (1941), the Court held that to sustain diversity jurisdiction, there must be an actual and
substantial controversy between citizens of different states. Id. at 69. In United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Co., 955 F.2d 1085 (6th Cir. 1992), the court was considering the district court’s
“substantive determination to realign the parties in this action, thereby destroying diversity
jurisdiction and requiring dismissal of the case.” Id. at 1088. In City of Vestavia Hills, 676 F.3d
1310 (11th Cir. 2012), the court was “[w]eighing the propriety of the district court’s decision to
realign the parties and deny Vestavia Hills’s motion to remand.” Id. at 1313.
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 120) alleges that jurisdiction is proper

in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that
Defendants violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. There is no allegation of
diversity jurisdiction.

Moreover, Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to realign the parties for

jurisdictional purposes; Plaintiffs want the Court to realign the parties for purposes of the burden
of proof.
Plaintiffs initiated this action and bear the burden of proving their claims. Defendants bear
the burden of proving their defenses. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Realign the Parties is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2