Clark et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 13

Memorandum Opinion and Order re 5 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The court ORDERS that the above-captioned action be, and is hereby, remanded to the state court from which it was removed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 6/5/2012) (klm)

U. Dl xl rcc - r
s. sl c' f'

NORTHERN m srl cT ol ''
rtl
zTEx

FI D
LE

zs
k

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT c URT

NORT
HERN DISTRICT oF TExAs

.K -5 2 1
l
22

FORT WORTH Dlvzslou

CLER/ cs. svRl cocuv
ol cw
AN

By

THONY CLARK AND DoNxA CLARK ,

so ut
y

Plaintiffs,
VS .

NO . 4 :12-CV -234-A

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK , N .A .,

Defendant .
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORD ER

The court has not

been persuaded that it has subject matter

jurisdiction over the above-captioned action. Therefore, the
court is ordering the action remanded to the state court from
which it was removed .

Backqround

This action was initiated on April 5, 2012, in the District
Court of Tarrant County , Texas, 352nd Judicial District, as Case
No . 352-258731-12 by the filing by plaintiffs, Anthony Clark and

Donna Clark, of their original petition (n
petition' against
'),
defendant, JpMorgan Chase Bank, N . . ('
A
'JPMC'). JPMC removed the
'
action to this court by notice of removal filed April

2012,

and filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' pleading for failure to
state a claim on May 4, 2012 .

On June 4 , 2012, pursuant to this court's order , JPMC filed
an amended notice of removal . In its amended notice of removal,

JPMC alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction
becau se of comp lete diversity of citizensh ip between plaintiffs
and defendant and an amount in controversy exceeding the sum or

value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28
U . C . 5 1332(
S.
a).
In the prayer of their petition , plaintiffs do not state a
specific amount of damages . Nor is there any other statement of

the amount of damages contained elsewhere in the petition .
However , JPMC contends that because plaintiffs seek an order
transferring title of the property from Federal National Mortgage
Association to p laintiffs , the minimum amount

controversy can

be based on the property value . Am . Notice of Removal at

support of its position, JPMC cites to legal authority standing
for the proposition that uwhen the right to property is in
question , the value of the property' constitutes the proper
'
measure of the amount in controversy in an action such as this

one . Id . JPMC further states, as an additional basis for the
amount in controversy , that plaintiffs are seeking attorney 's
fees, economic damages, punitive damages , and exemplary damages .
A fter having evaluated the pleadings, and after reviewing
applicable legal authorities, the court remains unpersuaded that

the amount in controversy in this action exceeds the required
amount .
II .

Basic Princip les

The court starts With a statement of basic principles
announced by the Fifth Circuit :

Pursuant to 28 U .S. j 1441(
C.
a) a defendant may remove to
federal court any state court action over which the federal

district courts would have original jurisdiction. u
The removing
party bears the burden of showing that federal subject matter
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.' Manguno v.
'
Prudential Prop . Cas. Ins. Co ., 276 F. 720, 723 (
3d
5th Cir.
2001)

nMoreover, because the effect of removal is to deprive

the state court of an action properly before it , removal raises
significant federalism concerns , which mandate strict
construction of the removal statute .' Carpenter v . Wichita Falls
'

Indep. Sch . Distw 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (
5th Cir. 1995) (
citation

omitted). Any doubts about whether removal jurisdiction is
proper must therefore be resolved against the exercise of federal

jurisdiction . Acuna v . Brown & Root Inc ., 200 F. 335, 339 (
3d
5th
Cir . 2000).
To determine the amount in controversy for the purpose of

establishing diversity jurisdiction, the court ordinarily looks
3

to the plaintiffs ' state court petition . Manquno , 276 F .
3d at
723 . If it is not facially apparent from the petition that the

amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, the removing

party must set forth summary judgment-type evidence, either in
the notice of removal or in an affidavit , showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds that amount .

Id .; Allen v . R & H Oil & Gas Co ., 63 F .3d
-

1326, 1335 (
5th Cir . 1995).
The amount in controversy is measured from the perspective
of the plaintiffs . Vraney v . Cntv . of Pinellas, 250 F .
2d 617,

6l8 (
5th Cir. 1958) (
per curiam). In an action for declaratory

or injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is the nvalue of
the object of the litigationr' or nthe value of the right to be
'

protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.'
'
Leininqer v . Leininqer, 705 F . 727, 729 (
2d
5th Cir. 1983).
11 1 .

The True Nature of Plaintiffs ' Claims

Plaintiff s ' petition does not specify a dollar amount of

recovery sought that is at least $75,000 .00, nor does it define
With specificity the value of the right sought to be protected or

the extent of the injury sought to be prevented. As a result,
the court has evaluated the true nature of plaintiff s ' claims to
determine the amount actually in controversy between the parties .
4

Plaintiffs' petition alleges claims for wrongful
foreclosure , void deed , and v iolations of the Texas Property

Code . A fter rev iewing such petition , the court concludes that
the true nature of this action is to prevent defendant from

taking possession of the property pursuant to its foreclosure
proceedings . As the petition alleges , plaintiffs pursue that goal

by seeking ( an order barring any foreclosure or forcible
a)

detainer proceedings; and ( a money judgment to compensate them
b)
Eor damages they have suffered , because defendant lacked proper
authority to foreclose on the property or to threaten them w ith a

foreclosure sale . The court has not been prov ided with any
information from which it can determ ine that the value to

plaintiffs of such relief is greater than $75,000.00.
JPMC contends that the value of the property serves as the

amount in controversy because plaintiffs seek to transfer title
to the property from Federal National Mortgage Association to
plaintiffs nby rescinding the foreclosure sale' through a court
'
order . Am . Notice of Removal at

JPMC relies on the oft-cited

argument that in actions seeking declaratory or injunctive
relief, nthe value of the Property is to be used in determining
the amount in controversy .' Id . at 3 . Specifically , JPMC states
'

that the property value is $125,590, the tax appraisal value of

5

the property provided by the Tarrant County Appraisal District .
Id .

However , the court is not persuaded by the argument that
this figure supplies the basis for plaintiffs ' interest

the

property , especially given that plaintiffs have not p leaded hoW
much equity they have in the property , and JPMC even states that

' pllaintiffs have no equity in the property .' Id . at
'l
'

JPMC

does not cite to , nor can the court discern , any such statement

to support a finding that the property value is the amount in
controversy .

That

JPMC 'S attribution of the property value

figure as damages is an act of its own doing--not plaintiffs '.
To the extent that these statements suggest that the property

value is the proper measure of the amount in controversy in this

action, the court rejects that argumentx
Plainly , the sole goal of plaintiffs ' action is to avoid or

delay a foreclosure sale and to retain possession of the
property . Nothing is alleged that would put a monetary value to
plaintiffs ' accomplishment of those goals . While plaintiffs
appear to request equitable relief based on a claim that they are

lThecourti f iirwih t unpubls Fit Cicui opi on, NatonsarM ort LLC v.
s am la t he
ihed fh r t ni
i t
g.

Kno 351F. ' 8 ( t Ci. 9 .Thepe tn ntp to o Nainsa ,nt r r le o W a lrv.
x,
Appx 44 5h r 200 )
rie orin f to tr i u n, eis n le
Pr fll . p, 6 F. 5 ,5 - ( t Ci.1 ) Thi c r h prvi l e ane isr a o ng
o ns Cor .29 2d 45 47 48 5 h r 961 . s ou t as e ousy xpli d t e s ni
f fndi W aleri
or i ng
l nappost t det m i ng t amounti contover y i cas s h ast i t
ie o er ni he
n
r s n es uc
he nsant

a ton.Se Balw v. rc ' Sevii Co.No. llCV- 30A, lW L 88 35( D. x. a .
ci
e le Ame ias r cnc , 4: - 0 - 201
01 N. Te M r
l 2 1.
4, 0l )

entitled to hold legal title in the property , they do not assert
that such relief is based on a claim that they have outright
ownership of the property , free of any indebtedness . Indeed ,
plaintiffs make statements to suggest that their ownership of the
property is encumbered by a debt , or more precisely , a security

lien.2 The value to plaintiffs of their rights in the litigation
is, at most, the value of their interest in the property , not the
value of the property itself . Thus , JPMC has not established
?
the value of plaintiffs ' interest in the property .
Finally , JPMC seems to suggest that a request for attorney 's
fees and economic , punitive , and exemplary damages may support a

finding that the amount in controversy is met . Id . at 3 .
Without an amount to serve as a basis for compensatory damages ,
however, the court cannot form any reliable estimate for the

amount plaintiffs could recover for attorney 's fees or economic ,
punitive, or exemplary damages. Additionally , JPMC has not shown
that the total claim for punitive or exemplary damages is more

2Plitfss g se i t i peii t t h i o rhi o t ep op ryi s b e t oas c rt
an if ug e td n her tton ha t er wne s p f h r e t s u j c t e u iy
len pl
i aced by t deed oftus ,and sat t i or t pur has t rpr
he
r t
t ed hat n der o c e hei opert t y wer r r t
y, he
e equied o
fr tsi anot and deed oftus . otce ofRem oval Ex. 2 a 2- ! 8 1
is gn
e
r tN i
,
A- t 3, ! - 0.
3n t rpetton, plitfsalg dt td fnda tt uho i e jaf e l s es l whe i h dno
l hei ii
an if le e ha e e n ç t rzld orc o ur ae n t a
a
l uli er ti t pr t ' SeeNotce ofRemoval Ex. 2a 6, 2 Li Balw, antfsa e
awf nt es n he opery.'
i
,
A- t ! 3. ke le pli if r

' otc ale ngt vai t oft n t so d e o tus' rt e ,he ' r l dip eg t td f n nt
' h lngi he ldiy he o e r e ds f r tl ah r t y ' ey s ut l ha e e da s
n
;
me
ar t onesha ng t rghtt enf cet edocument ' 2011W L 8801 a *5.
e he
vi he i o or hos
s.
'
35 t
7

likely than not to meet the $75,000. minimum . See Allen,
00
F .3d at 1336 .

Thus , JMPC has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount actually in controversy in this action exceeds

the sum or value of $75,000.00, excluding interest and costs.
Consequently , the court

remanding the case to the state court

from which it was removed , because of the failure of JPMC to

persuade the court that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
IV .

Order

For the reasons given above ,

The court ORDERS that the above-captioned action be , and is

hereby , remanded to the state court from

ich ' wa y,moved .
/z
,
aL
.
,

SI
GNED June s, 2012.

.

'=
JO

c

U

D

ed States District

/

8

udge