Quarles v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/1/2013. (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
ARNOLD EMMITT QUARLES III
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.

)
)
) NO. 3-13-0881
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 9). For the reasons
stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
FACTS
This is an action for wrongful foreclosure. Plaintiff alleges that, on May 9, 2013, Defendant
Bank of America illegally foreclosed on Plaintiff’s property in Rutherford County, Tennessee.
Plaintiff further contends that, on June 3, 2013, Defendant Fannie Mae filed an unlawful Detainer
Action (General Sessions Case No. 221381) against Plaintiff in the General Sessions Court of
Rutherford County. Plaintiff asserts that, after he was served with the Detainer Action, on July 11,
2013, he filed a new lawsuit (Circuit Court Case No. 6-6717) for wrongful foreclosure in Rutherford
County Circuit Court, naming all Defendants herein. Plaintiff also moved to remove the Detainer
Action from Rutherford County General Sessions Court to the Rutherford County Circuit Court so
that Fannie Mae’s action could be a part of Plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure case, but the General
Sessions Judge denied that Motion.
Plaintiff claims that the General Sessions Court ruled in Fannie Mae’s favor on the Detainer
Action and granted possession to Fannie Mae. Plaintiff also asserts that the General Sessions Judge
told Plaintiff to appeal the case so that he could join it with his Circuit Court case. Plaintiff appealed

the General Sessions Order to Circuit Court on July 29, 2013, and the case was docketed as Circuit
Court Case No. 6-6780. The Court can find no evidence that the Case No. 6-6780 appeal was
consolidated with this action.
On August 30, 2013, Defendants removed the Circuit Court action to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the Case No. 6-6780 state
court appeal on September 12, 2013, after this case was removed. Plaintiff’s Counterclaim in that
action is essentially the same as Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case.
Plaintiff seeks to have the case returned to state court, arguing that the state court acquired
jurisdiction first (when Fannie Mae filed the Detainer Action); that his Complaint is based solely
on state law and Defendants have failed to state any independent basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction; that because Fannie Mae chose state court to bring its action, it cannot consent to
removal herein; and that there could be inconsistent judgments if both the state court action and this
action were to continue simultaneously.
MOTION TO REMAND
Generally, a civil case brought in a state court may be removed by a defendant to federal
court if it could have been brought there originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This case was removed
based upon diversity of citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy being greater than
$75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The determination of federal jurisdiction in a diversity case is made as of the time of
removal. Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2000). At the time this case
was removed, there was pending in state court an appeal from the General Sessions Detainer Action
that involved two parties - Mr. Quarles and Fannie Mae. Although Plaintiff later filed an Answer

2

and Counterclaim adding all Defendants herein, that Counterclaim was not filed at the time this
action was removed.
Plaintiff argues that the state court acquired jurisdiction first, but that jurisdiction was over
only Plaintiff and Fannie Mae. Plaintiff contends that his Complaint is based solely on state law
and Defendants have failed to state any independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, but
Defendants have removed this action based on diversity jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff claims that because Fannie Mae chose state court to bring its action, it cannot consent to
removal herein, but Plaintiff cites no authority for this proposition.
Removal in this case was proper because, at the time of the removal, this action could have
been brought here originally, based upon diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 9) is DENIED. New deadlines
for briefing on the pending Motion to Dismiss are included in the Order accompanying this
Memorandum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3