Juarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al

Filing 15

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 10 Motion to Remand to State Court. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 10/31/2012) (ykp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROSE ANN JUAREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
PROVENCE AT FIREWHEEL
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
and SFTF HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-2480-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rose Ann Juarez’s Motion to Remand (doc. 10), filed August 23,
2012. For the reasons stated below, Juarez’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Juarez and her now ex-husband, Russell Keith, purchased real property located at 1114 Billie
Johnson, Garland, Dallas County, Texas (“the Property”) with a home mortgage loan while the two
were still married. Orig. Pet. ¶¶ 5-6. A Deed of Trust was executed and delivered to secure the loan.
Id. The deed of trust was eventually assigned to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP which has since
merged with Bank of America, N.A. Id. ¶ 18; Def. Not. Removal 1. Juarez has failed to make a loan
payment since September of 2008, yet continues to reside at the Property while failing to pay the
-1-

mortgage or taxes. Def.’s Response to Mot. Remand ¶ 1.
Juarez filed this lawsuit against Defendants on July 2, 2012, in Dallas County, Texas. Def.
Not. Removal ¶ 1. Juarez brought four causes of action: request for declaratory judgment regarding
validity and enforceability of lien, equitable suit to quiet title, declaratory judgment regarding right
to an accounting and opportunity to service, and declaratory judgment to enforce equity of
redemption. Orig. Pet. ¶¶ 30-42. Defendants subsequently removed the suit to this Court, claiming
that the civil action involved a federal question of law, and, alternatively, the parties were diverse
and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Id. ¶¶ 4-19. In response, Juarez filed a Motion
to Remand, arguing that the Defendants had failed to establish that the parties to the suit met the
diversity requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Juarez and two of the named defendants are
citizens of the State of Texas. Mot. Remand ¶¶ 5-6, 9-11. Defendants replied that removal is proper
because there is federal question jurisdiction, as well as continuing to argue diversity jurisdiction. Def.
Resp. to Pl. Mot. Remand ¶¶ 4-5. The motion to remand is ripe for consideration.
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. Howery v. Allstate Ins. 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).
A defendant may remove an action filed in the state court to federal court if the case could
-2-

have been originally filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction
is limited; federal courts may entertain only those cases involving a question of federal law or those
where parties are of diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. “The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal district courts are also 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.
III.
ANALYSIS
This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In Juarez’s original
petition in state court, she specifically claimed that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP violated “the
Non-Response RESPA QUALIFIED WRITTEN NOTICE” when BAC failed to answer the
Plaintiff’s request for information regarding her note and property rights. Orig. Pet. ¶ 26. RESPA
is a federal statute that applies to the servicing of federally related mortgage loans. 12 U.S.C. §
2605(a).
Defendants removed the civil action to this Court because Juarez based some of her claims
on provisions of RESPA under 12 U.S.C. § 2605, posing a federal question. Def. Not. Removal ¶ 4.
Plaintiff’s motion to remand focuses on the lack of diversity, but fails to address the claim of federal
question jurisdiction based on the RESPA claims in the original petition. See generally Pl. Mot.
Remand. In response, Defendants once again highlight the federal question presented by the
Plaintiff, giving this Court federal question jurisdiction. Resp. of Defs. to Pl. Mot. to Remand ¶ 4.
Because Juarez initially brought claims based on a federal question under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (RESPA),
-3-

this Court maintains federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The parties dispute whether Defendants have met the diversity of citizenship requirement
for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court need reach that issue given that federal subject
matter jurisdiction is satisfied by the federal question.
Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the action and Juarez’s Motion
to Remand is hereby DENIED.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Juarez’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: October 31, 2012.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-