Cannon et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. from 366th District Court, Collin County, Texas, case number 366-02604-2011. (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3137493), filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lewis, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
STEVEN RANDOLPH CANNON AND
FARAHNAZ K. CANNON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-00458

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Defendant” or “JPMC”) hereby files this
Notice of Removal of this action from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas,
wherein it is now pending as Cause No. 366-02604-2011 to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, the District Court of the United States for the
District and Division embracing the place where this action is pending. This Notice of Removal
is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. In support hereof, Defendants show this Court
as follows:
1.

On June 22, 2011, Plaintiffs Steven Randolph Cannon and Farahnaz K. Cannon

(“Plaintiffs”) commenced an action against Defendants in the 366th Judicial District Court,
Collin County, Texas, entitled “Steven Randolph Cannon and Farahnaz K. Cannon v. Chase
Home Finance LLC.”
2.

Removal is timely because thirty (30) days have not elapsed since Plaintiffs’

Original Petition (“Petition” or “Complaint”) was served upon any defendant, as required by 28

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Page 1

U.S.C. § 1446(b). There is record of service on Defendant at this time. See Ex. C-4.
3.

This Notice of Removal will be filed with the 366th Judicial District Court of

Collin County, Texas and a copy of this Notice of Removal will also be served on the Plaintiffs’
counsel. In accordance with Local Rule CV-81, attached are the following:
Exhibit A:

A list of all parties in the case, their party type, and current status of the
removed case.

Exhibit B:

The state court docket sheet.

Exhibit C:

A copy of all pleadings that assert causes of action, all answers to such
pleadings, and a copy of all process and orders served upon the party
removing the case to this court.

Exhibit D:

A complete list of the attorneys involved in the action, a record of the
party that requested trial by jury, if any, and the name and address of the
court from which the case is being removed.

4.

in

Also

accordance

with

Local

Rule

CV-81,

Defendant

has

filed

contemporaneously with this Notice a civil cover sheet.
Ground for Removal: Diversity
5.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in

that this is a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and is between
citizens of different States; specifically:
(a)

6.

The Amount in Controversy Exceeds the Federal Minimum
Jurisdictional Requirements

Plaintiffs’ Petition seeks a declaration that Defendant has no interest in the

property located at 1509 Pagewynne Drive, Plano Texas 75093 (the “Property”). See C-1 at 5.
According to the Collin Central Appraisal District, the certified appraised value for the Property
is $222,245.
7.

“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief the amount in controversy is

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Page 2

measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729
(5th Cir. 1983). In other words, “[t]he amount in controversy, in an action for declaratory or
injunctive relief, is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be
prevented.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (5th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, in light of the value of the subject property, the amount in controversy in
this matter meets and exceeds the federal jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.
(b)
8.

There is Complete Diversity between Defendant and Plaintiffs

Under the diversity statute, corporations “shall be deemed to be a citizen of any

State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of
business....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
9.

Plaintiffs were, at the time of filing this action, have been at all times since, and

still are individual resident citizens of the State of Virginia. See Ex. C-1 at 1. For purposes of
diversity, an individual is a citizen of the state of their domicile, which is the place of their true,
fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, to which they have the intention of
returning home whenever they are absent there from. See Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th
Cir. 1954).
10.

Defendant JPMC was, at the time of the filing of this action, has been at all times

since, and still is a national association with its main office, as designated by its articles of
association, in Columbus, Ohio. A national bank is a citizen of the state in which its main office,
as set forth in its articles of association, is located. See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 126
S.Ct. 941 (2006). Accordingly, JPMC is a citizen of Ohio.
11.

As JPMC is a citizen of Ohio, while Plaintiffs are citizens of Virginia, but not

Ohio, complete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Page 3

12.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), this court has original jurisdiction over this

matter as the amount in controversy meets the federal jurisdictional minimum and there is a
complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendant.
13.

There has not been any adjudication on the merits of the Complaint in the state

court action that would deprive Defendant of the right of removal. See Beighley v. Federal
Deposit Ins. Corp., 868 F.2d 776, 782 (5th Cir. 1989) (“in general, ‘the right of removal is not
lost by action in the state court short of proceeding to an adjudication on the merits.’” (quoting
1A Moore, Federal Practice P 0.157[9] at 153 (1987)).
WHEREFORE, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. prays that the above-described action now
pending in the 366th District Court of Collin County, Texas, be removed to this Court.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Wm. Lance Lewis
WM. LANCE LEWIS
State Bar No. 12314560
TRAVIS LEE RICHINS
State Bar No. 24061296
QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS,
WINSLETT & MOSER P.C.
2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
[phone] (Direct)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on July 22, 2011, as follows:
Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested
Stephen W. Tiemann
State Bar No. 20021750
2000 E. Lamar Blvd. Suite 600
Arlington, Texas 76006
T: 817-275-1065
F: 817-275-1056
[e-mail]

/s/ Wm. Lance Lewis
Wm. Lance Lewis / Travis Lee Richins

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Page 5