Kantz v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Kantz's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 9 ) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/7/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM E. KANTZ, JR,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-00051
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is William Kantz’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. No. 9.) On December 20,
2016, Kantz filed the Complaint against Bank of America, NA, in the Davidson County,
Tennessee, Chancery Court. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Kantz alleges Bank of America violated the Truth in
Lending Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605 et. seq. (“Act.”) (Id.) On January 13, 2017, Bank of America
filed the Notice of Removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. (Doc. No. 1.) Kantz now moves to
remand this case to state court. (Doc. No. 9.) For the following reasons, the Motion to Remand is
DENIED.
Generally, any civil action may be removed from state court by a defendant if the claim
originally could have been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2012). As Kantz’s claim
arises under federal law, the Court has original jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(2012). Congress did not expressly prohibit removal in the Act, nor is Bank of America’s removal
precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1445. Therefore, removal is proper.
Neither of Kantz’s arguments support remand in this case. First, Kantz argues that the Act
grants concurrent jurisdiction to state and federal courts implicitly precludes removal. (Doc. No.
9 at 2.) However, “[t]he weight of judicial authority supports the conclusion that a Congressional
1

grant of concurrent jurisdiction in a statute does not imply that removal is prohibited.” Dorsey v.
Detroit, 858 F.2d 338, 340-41 (6th Cir. 1988) (compiling cases). Second, Kantz attempts to bolster
his motion by acknowledging his quick response and lack of “bad faith.” (Doc. No. 9 at 2.)
However, this merely satisfies the procedural requirement to file a motion to remand on grounds
other than a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012), and not the propriety
of removal.
For the foregoing reasons, Kantz’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2