Hainey v. U.S. Bank, National Association et al
Filing
8
Memorandum Opinion and Order....Defendants have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount actually in controversy exceeds the sum value of $75,000, excluding interest and costs. The court is remanding the case to the state court from which it was removed, because of the failure of defendants to persuade the court that subject matter jurisdiction exists. cy to 153rd Judicial District Tarrant Co Tx (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 7/1/2013) (wrb)
lJ.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DIST I~R(!fflj~DISTRICTOFTEXAS
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EXAS r--...::F;;...::I=L::.:::E~:..::::D:__..__,
FORT WORTH DIVISI
JUL - I 2813
ROSHANDA HAINEY,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
BY~~~~~~~~
Deputy
§
§
§
NO. 4:13-CV-482-A
§
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE,
ET AL.
I
§
§
§
§
Defendants.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Now before the court is the amended notice of removal filed
in the above-captioned action by defendants,
(1) U.S. Bank,
National Association, as Trustee ("U.S. Bank"),
(2) Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen"), and (3) Angel Reyes & Associates, P.C.
("Reyes").
Defendants have alleged diversity of citizenship
under 28 U.S.C.
§
1332 as the sole basis for removal.
Having
considered the amended notice of removal and the original state
court petition of plaintiff, Roshanda Hainey, attached thereto,
the court concludes that defendants have failed to sufficiently
allege the required amount in controversy, and that the case
should be remanded to the state court from which it was removed.
I.
Background
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her original
petition against defendants on June 3, 2013, in the District
Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd Judicial District, as Cause
No. 153-266209-13.
court.
Defendants then removed the action to this
On June 28, 2013, pursuant to this court's order,
defendants filed their amended notice of removal.
Defendants
allege that the court has subject matter jurisdiction because of
complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and
defendants,
1
and an amount in controversy exceeding the sum or
value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
u.s.c.
§
See 28
1332 (a).
In the prayer of her petition, plaintiff does not state a
specific amount of damages.
Nor is there any other statement of
the amount of damages contained elsewhere in the petition.
However, defendants contend that because plaintiff is seeking
declaratory or injunctive relief regarding the right to property,
the amount in controversy is the value of the subject property,
which defendants assert is $136,900.00.
1
Defendants argue that
As plaintiffs original petition now stands, the parties are not completely diverse; however,
defendants allege that Reyes was joined improperly to defeat federal jurisdiction. Because the court
concludes that defendants have failed to properly allege that the amount in controversy is satisfied, the
court need not decide whether Reyes was properly joined.
2
the value of the property plus the unspecified monetary relief
requested by plaintiff satisfy the amount in controversy.
In
support of their position, defendants cite to legal authority
standing for the proposition that the right, title, and interest
plaintiff has in the property constitutes the proper measure of
the amount in controversy in an action such as this one, where
plaintiff could be divested of the property entirely or could
quiet title in the property free and clear of defendants' liens.
2d Am. Notice of Removal at 5-6.
After having evaluated the pleadings, and after reviewing
applicable legal authorities, the court remains unpersuaded that
the amount in controversy in this action meets or exceeds the
required amount.
II.
Basic Principles
The court begins with a statement of basic principles
announced by the Fifth Circuit:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1441(a), a defendant may remove to
federal court any state court action over which the federal
district court would have original jurisdiction.
"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.
3
2001).
"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."
Carpenter v. Wichita Falls
Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 1995)
omitted) .
(citation
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.3d 335, 339 (5th
Cir. 2000).
To determine the amount in controversy for the purpose of
establishing diversity jurisdiction, the court ordinarily looks
to the plaintiff's state court petition.
723.
Manguno, 276 F.3d at
If it is not facially apparent from the petition that the
amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 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 plaintiff.
(5th Cir. 1958)
Vraney v. Cnty. of Pinellas, 250 F.2d 617, 618
(per curiam).
In an action for declaratory or
injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is the "value of the
4
object of the litigation," or "the value of the right to be
protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented."
Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 1983).
III.
Analysis
Plaintiff's petition does not make a demand for a specific
amount of damages, does not specify a dollar amount of recovery
sought that is at least $75,000.00, and does not define with
specificity the value of the right it seeks to protect or the
extent of the injury it seeks to prevent.
As a result, the court
evaluates the true nature of plaintiff's claims to determine the
amount actually in controversy between the parties.
The true nature of this action is for plaintiff to maintain
possession of residential property she used as security for the
making of a loan.
As the petition alleges, plaintiff pursues
these goals by seeking an order (1) barring any foreclosure or
forcible detainer proceedings and quieting title in her favor;
and (2) requiring defendants to refund any wrongfully collected
fees, charges, and payments; and (3) attorney's fees.
of Removal, Ex. Bl at 3.
Am. Notice
Thus, considering plaintiff's original
petition, the court has not been provided with any information
from which it can determine that the value to plaintiff of such
relief is greater than $75,000.00.
5
Defendants contend that the fair-market value of the
property should serve as the amount in controversy because
plaintiff requests equitable relief to enjoin defendant from
foreclosing on the property.
Am. Notice of Removal at 5.
Defendants rely on the oft-cited argument that when equitable
relief is sought, the amount in controversy is measured by the
value of the object of the litigation, and when a mortgagor is
attempting to protect his property, the fair market value of the
property is the amount in controversy.
Id.
(citing Martinez v.
BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2010 WL 6511713, at *7 (W.D. Tex.
Sept. 24, 2010)).
In the amended notice of removal, defendants
suggest that the value of the property is approximately
$136,900.00.
Id. at 6.
Defendants also argue that because
plaintiff is seeking to avoid foreclosure and currently owes over
$160,000.00 on the loan, the value to her of avoiding foreclosure
is at least $160,000.00.
The court is not persuaded that the above figures supply the
basis for plaintiff's interest in the property, especially given
that plaintiff herself has not pleaded how much equity she has in
the property.
Defendants do not cite to, nor can the court
discern, any such statement in the petition to support a finding
that the value of the property is the amount in controversy.
That is, for example, defendants' attribution of the $136,900.00
6
figure or the $160,000.00 figure as damages is an act of their
own doing--not plaintiff's.
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
argument. 2
Plainly, the sole goal of plaintiff's action is to avoid or
delay a foreclosure sale and to be able to retain possession of
the property.
Nothing is alleged that would assign a monetary
value to plaintiff's accomplishment of those goals.
While
plaintiff appears to request equitable relief based on a claim
that she is entitled to hold legal title in the property, she
does not assert that such relief is based on a claim that she has
outright ownership of the property, free from any indebtedness.
Indeed, plaintiff makes statements to suggest that her ownership
of the property is encumbered by a debt, as the petition
describes a note and deed of trust, and questions whether
defendant is the rightful owner or holder of the note and deed of
trust.
The value to plaintiff of her rights in the litigation
2
The court is familiar with the unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion, Nationstar Mortg. LLC v.
Knox, 351 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. 2009). The pertinent portion of Nationstar, in turn, relies on Waller v.
Prof] Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961). 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: l l-CV-030-A, 2011WL880135 (N.D. Tex. Mar.
14, 2011).
7
is, at most, the value of her interest in the property, not the
value of the property itself or the amount defendants allege is
owed on the loan.
Thus, defendants have not established the
value of plaintiff's interest in the property.
Defendants have 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 is remanding the case to the
state court from which it was removed, because of the failure of
defendants 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 which it was removed.
SIGNED July 1, 2013.
Judge
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?