Everhart v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
Filing
9
Memorandum Opinion and Order....action remanded to the state court from which it was removed. cy to 236th Judicial District Tarrant Co (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 2/6/2013) (wrb)
u.s. mST1l1CT COlJTG'
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MICHAEL EVERHART,
§
CLERK, U.S.
I
mSTRlC·rC~URT JI
By ____~--__---
§
Plaintiff,
FIT VI)
~__.~d1:;-~__1
•
_ 6 2013
Deputy
'-------
§
§
VS.
§
NO. 4:13-CV-031-A
§
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
§
§
§
Defendant.
§
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.
1.
Background
Plaintiff, Michael Everhart, initiated the above-captioned
action by the filing of his original petition in the District
Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 342nd Judicial District, against
defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association.
The case
was subsequently transferred to the 236th Judicial District
Court, from which it was removed.
The notice of removal asserted
that this court had subject matter jurisdiction by reason of
diversity of citizenship, as contemplated by 28 U.S.C.
§
1332,
because the amount in controversy exceeded the sum or value of
$75,000.
As to the amount in controversy, defendant in the notice of
removal contended that" [i]n actions seeking declaratory or
injunctive relief the amount in controversy is measured by the
value of the object of the litigation" or is "the value of the
right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be
prevented."
Notice of Removal at 3 (internal citations omitted).
According to defendant, because the Tarrant Central Appraisal
District has appraised plaintiff's property at $198,100, this
established the amount in controversy.
Additionally, defendant
claimed that the amount in controversy was established by
plaintiff's request for a release of defendant's lien, which
secured a principal amount of $206,250 at the loan closing.
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 ofthe 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, mpre 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 re-pled
notice of removal, the court remains unpersuaded that the amount
in controversy exceeds the required jurisdictional minimum.
In the state court petition plaintiff alleged that in 2007
he signed a note and deed of trust in order to purchase his
property.
Plaintiff maintained that any purported transfer of
the note and deed of trust to defendant was invalid for various
reasons, with the consequence that defendant had no right to
foreclose on plaintiff's property until it could prove it was the
lawful holder of the note and deed of trust.
5
Plaintiff sought several declarations concerning defendant's
interest in the property, including that defendant lacks any
interest that would entitle it to foreclose on the property.
Plaintiff also asserted causes of action to quiet title and for
"refund, fees and costs."
Notice of Removal, Ex. A-2, PI.' s
Original Pet. at 8 (capitalization in original omitted) .
Plaintiff also sought to enjoin defendant from taking any action
on the property during the pendency of the litigation.
No amount
in controversy was stated on the face of the petition.
Defendant in the re-pled notice of removal persists in its
contention that the value of the property constitutes the amount
in controversy.
However, nothing on the face of the petition
indicates that such represents the amount plaintiff is seeking in
this litigation.
Defendant in the re-pled notice of removal
relies essentially on the same arguments set forth in the notice
of removal to support its contention, adding citations to
opinions from other courts of appeal and district courts, some
from other jurisdictions, in support thereof.2
The court is not
2The re-pled notice of removal includes a footnote with a lengthy string citation of numerous
district court opinions from all of the judicial districts in Texas, including the Northern District, in
support of defendant's argument as to the amount in controversy. Missing from the footnote are citations
(continued ... )
6
persuaded by the non-binding authorities cited in the re-pled
notice of removal.
Defendant also relies in part on Nationstar Mortage LLC v.
Knox, 351 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2009), and Waller v.
Professional Insurance Corporation, 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th
cir. 1961), to support its argument regarding the amount in
controversy.
Waller.
The pertinent portion of Nationstar also relies on
This court has previously explained its reasoning for
finding Waller inapposite to determining the amount in
controversy in cases such 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 re-pled 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.
2 ( •••
Therefore, the court lacks subject matter
continued)
to any of the numerous opinions of the undersigned holding that the appraised value of the property does
not establish the amount in controversy. A number of such cases involved defendant's current counsel.
See,~, Civil Case No. 4:12-CV-470-A, Olivas v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA; Civil Case No. 4:12-CV234-A, Clark v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Civil Case No. 4:12-CV-OI9-A, Barth v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, NA; Civil Case No.4: II-CV-636-A, Marchese v. U.S. Bank National Association.
7
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 February 6, 2013.
8
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?