Bryant v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the CMLTI Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AMC3
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order: 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. (See order for specifics.) (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/26/2012) (mdf)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~OURT
FILE,D
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA~
~~---~
FORT WORTH DIVISION
~_20I~J
§
§
CI-IERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
By _ _---;::_.
_
Deputy
LEONARD BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
§
§
VS.
§
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CMLTI
ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2007-AMC3,
§
Defendant.
NO. 4:12-CV-863-A
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
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.
I.
Background
On November 5, 2012, plaintiff, Leonard Bryant, initiated
the above-captioned action by the filing of his original petition
in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 67th JUdicial
District, against defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for the CMLTI Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2007-AMC3.
By notice of removal filed December 3, 2012,
defendant removed the action to this court, alleging that this
court had subject matter jurisdiction by reason of diversity of
citizenship, as contemplated by 28 U.S.C.
§
1332, and that the
amount in controversy exceeded the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, as contemplated by
§
1332(a).
Defendant contended in the notice of removal that where, as
here, a plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, the
value of the object of the litigation constitutes the amount in
controversy, and further maintained that where a right to
property is called into question in its entirety, the value of
the property controls the amount in controversy.
On that basis,
defendant argued that because plaintiff's property was appraised
at $139,000.00, it had established that the amount in controversy
exceeded the jurisdictional minimum.
Because of a concern that defendant had not provided the
court with information that would enable the court to find the
existence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, the court
ordered defendant to file an amended notice of removal, together
2
with supporting documentation, showing that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
Defendant timely
complied with the court's order.
II.
Basic Principles
The court starts with a statement of basic principles
announced by the Fifth Circuit:
"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.3d 720, 723
(5th Cir. 2002).
"Moreover, 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."l
Carpenter v. Wichita
Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1995).
Any doubts about whether removal jurisdiction is proper must
lThe removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:
[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to
the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
3
therefore be resolved against the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.
Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th
Cir. 2000).
To determine the amount in controversy, the court ordinarily
looks to the plaintiff's state court petition.
at 723.
Manguno, 276 F.3d
If it is not facially apparent from the petition that
the amount in controversy exceeds the required amount, the
removing party must set forth summary judgment-type evidence,
either in the notice of removal or in an affidavit, showing that
the amount in controversy is, more likely than not, greater than
$75,000.
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 plaintiff.
See Garcia v. Koch oil Co. of
Texas Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 640 n.4 (5th Cir. 2003).
III.
The True Nature of Plaintiff's Claims
The petition by which plaintiff initiated this action in the
state court does not specify a dollar amount of recovery sought,
nor does it define in any way the value of the right sought to be
protected or the extent of the injury sought to be prevented.
4
Rather, the allegations of the petition are typical of many state
court petitions that are brought before this court by notices of
removal in which the plaintiff makes vague, general, and
obviously legally baseless allegations in an attempt to frustrate
the procedures a lender is pursuing, or has pursued, to regain
possession of residential property the plaintiff used as security
for the making of a loan.
As the court has been required to do in other cases of this
kind, the court has undertaken an evaluation of the true nature
of plaintiff's claims.
Having done so, and having considered the
authorities and arguments cited by defendant in the amended
notice of removal, the court remains unpersuaded that the amount
in controversy exceeds the required jurisdictional minimum.
In the case at bar, plaintiff alleged that he executed a
Texas home equity note and deed of trust to refinance a previous
loan for his property.
The note identified Argent Mortgage
Company, LLC, as the original mortgagee.
Plaintiff received
notice of foreclosure by a sUbstitute trustee other than the one
named in the deed of trust.
Plaintiff also believes the note and
deed of trust have become bifurcated.
5
Consequently, although
defendant has now moved to foreclose on plaintiff's property,
plaintiff believes defendant may lack the right or authority to
proceed with the foreclosure.
Plaintiff asserted a number of
state law claims and causes of action against defendant, and
asked for a declaration that defendant has acted unconscionably
towards plaintiff and that defendant is required to produce the
original note signed by plaintiff.
Plaintiff further sought to
enjoin any transfer of his property.
Defendant in the amended notice of removal relies on the
same arguments set forth in the notice of removal, adding
citations to opinions from other district courts, some from other
states, in support thereof.
The court is not persuaded by the
other authorities cited in the amended notice of removal.
Defendant also relies in part on Waller v. Professional Insurance
Corporation, 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961), and Nationstar
Mortage LLC v. Knox, 351 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2009),
to support its contentions regarding the amount in controversy.
The pertinent portion of Nationstar also relies on Waller.
This
court has previously explained its reasoning for finding Waller
inapposite to determining the amount in controversy in cases such
6
as the instant action.
See Ballew v. America's Servicing Co.,
No. 4:11-CV-030-A, 2011 WL 880135 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011).
Defendant has failed to persuade the court otherwise.
The court finds nothing in the amended notice of removal as
would establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.
Therefore, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the action, and it should be remanded to the
state court from which it was removed.
IV.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that this action be, and is hereby,
remanded to the state court from which
SIGNED December 26, 2012.
McBRYDE
~.ted States Distr
Jel
i
7
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?