McDonald v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion to Remand. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 12/20/2011) (Judge Jane J Boyle)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ESTELA HUBERT MCDONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE
MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1
INC. TRUST PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-HE2,
BANK OF AMERICA, NA and
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2691-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Estela McDonald’s (“McDonald”) Motion to Remand, filed
November 7, 2011 (doc. 5). For the reasons listed below, McDonald’s Motion to Remand is
DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
McDonald states that she is the owner of real property located at 1504 Vida Court, Dallas
County, Texas (“the Property”). Compl.1 ¶ 10. On Or about September 23, 2004, Plaintiff purchased
the property and executed a note payable to Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (“AHL”). Id. ¶ 12.
1
The Court refers to McDonald’s “Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restrianing Order
and Request for Disclosure,” filed in state court and now removed to this Court, as the “Complaint.”
-1-
Beginning in February 2010, McDonald began to apply for a loan modification program with Bank
of America (“BOA”) and BAC Home Loans Servicing (“BAC”). Id. at ¶ 13. For approximately the
next twelve months, McDonald was continually asked to send in documents in order to complete
her application for a loan modification, which she hoped would reduce her monthly payments. Id.
¶¶ 13-17. During this time, McDonald was informed that she would not lose her home while her
application for a loan modification was pending Id. ¶ 16. Although McDonald timely paid her
monthly payments, she received a letter dated February 28, 2011, notifying her that she was in
default and that the Property would be foreclosed if she did not pay $4,255.43 by March 30, 2011.
Id. ¶ 18. During this time, McDonald continued to speak with BAC customer representatives, who
instructed her to re-submit loan modification documents. Id. ¶ 22. Defendants finally posted
McDonald’s property for foreclosure on October 4, 2011. Id. ¶ 23.
McDonald filed this lawsuit against Defendants on September 29, 2011, in Dallas County,
Texas. Notice of Removal ¶ 8. Defendants subsequently removed the suit to this Court, claiming
that the parties were diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Id. ¶¶ 2-8. In
response, McDonald filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that the Defendants had failed to establish
that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants, in turn, argue that because the fair market value of the Property exceeds $75,000,
removal was proper.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
When questions of federal jurisdiction arise, a federal court must presume that a suit falls
outside its jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited. See Howery v. Allstate Ins.
-2-
Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears
the burden of establishing it exists. Id. Any doubts regarding whether removal jurisdiction is proper
should be resolved against federal jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Federal District Courts are granted jurisdiction over those civil actions between citizens of
different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In
determining if the requisite amount in controversy has been met, any sum certain the plaintiff has
alleged in good faith shall control. Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
When the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a specific amount, the removing defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
requirement. Id. The district court must first look to the complaint and determine whether it is
“facially apparent” that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. St. Paul Reins. Co. v. Greenberg,
134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). If the amount is not facially apparent, the court may also
consider “summary judgment-type” evidence. Id. In making its assessment, the court should consider
the state court complaint as it existed at the time of removal. Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir. 1995).
III.
ANALYSIS
The parties do not dispute that Defendants have met the diversity of parties requirement for
removal. They part ways, however, on whether Defendants have met their burden of showing that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. McDonald’s complaint does not state the amount in
controversy, though Defendants’ attachments to its Notice of Removal show that the market value
-3-
of the Property for 2010, as determined by the Dallas Central Appraisal District, was $84,000. Notice
of Removal Ex. B. McDonald does not dispute the validity of these figures. Instead, McDonald
argues that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden in demonstrating that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 because the Complaint neither states an amount of damages nor
contests the validity of the note or deed of trust. Mot. Remand ¶¶ 8-9. Rather, the Complaint alleges
that Defendants have failed to comply with these documents, and as a result, the damages in
question cannot equal the value of the property. Id. ¶ 9. McDonald relies heavily on the proposition
that because she merely seeks to delay foreclosure until the merits of the lawsuit have been settled,
the amount in controversy is not equal to the value of the property, but to the “value to the Plaintiff
of postponing the foreclosure sale until it is determined if Defendants have the right to foreclose.”
Pl.’s Reply 2.
McDonald’s complaint, however, makes several claims that put title to her property at issue.
First, McDonald seeks a declaratory judgement pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Remedies
Code that Defendants have violated § 51.002(d) of the Texas Property Code and that any attempt
at a foreclosure should be enjoined. Compl. ¶ 55. McDonald’s further seeks a temporary restraining
order to enjoin a “wrongful foreclosure.” Id. ¶ 59. Finally, McDonald requests that any temporary
injunction be made permanent. Id. ¶ 62. Where the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment or
injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is “the value of the right to be protected or the extent
of the injury to be prevented.” Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir.
2002). When “a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property
controls the amount in controversy.” Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961).
If the Court grants McDonald’s request for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction,
-4-
Defendants would be unable to foreclose on the property. Given that McDonald seeks to enjoin sale
of her land, the Property is properly understood as the object of litigation. See Martinez v. BAC Home
Loans Servicing, L.P., 777 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1047 (W.D. Tex. 2010). Thus, McDonald’s request for
an injunction calls into question the right to the property in its entirety and the amount in
controversy is equal to the value of the property. See generally Hayward v. Chase Home Finance, LLC,
2011 WL 2881298, *4-5 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2011) (and cases cited therein). As the parties do not
dispute that the value of the property exceeds $75,000, and Defendants’ have offered unconverted
evidence to this effect, the Defendants have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, this Court has
diversity jurisdiction over the action and McDonald’s Motion for Remand is DENIED.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, removal was proper and McDonald’s Motion to Remand is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: December 20, 2011.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?