Wallace et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
Filing
8
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Now before the court is the amended notice of removal filed in the above-captioned action by defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. Defendant has alleged diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1 332 as the sole basis for removal. Having considered the amended notice of removal and the original state court petition of plaintiffs, Rickey F. Wallace and Julie D. Wallace, the court concludes that defendant has failed to sufficiently allege that this court has subject matter jurisdiction, and that the case should be remanded to the state court from which it was removed. The court ORDERS that the above-captioned action be, and is hereby, remanded to the state court from which it was removed. (See order for specifics.) (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/21/2013) (mdf)
u.s. DISTRICT COUltf
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT d8~~~~D~TRICTOFTEXAS
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX1 S.;,:;>·· . . . FILED
FORT WORTH DIVISION
OCT 2 I 2013
RICKEY F. WALLACE AND JULIE D.
WALLACE,
§
k,?:
§
,
§
Plaintiffs,
':;
CLE~
!
u.s. DISTRiCT CO~: RT
By_ _--=-
,
§
_
Deputy
§
VS.
§
NO. 4:13-CV-654-A
§
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
§
§
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Now before the court is the amended notice of removal filed
in the above-captioned action by defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association.
Defendant has 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 plaintiffs, Rickey F. Wallace and Julie
D. Wallace, the court concludes that defendant has failed to
sufficiently allege that this court has subject matter
jurisdiction, and that the case should be remanded to the state
court from which it was removed.
1.
Background
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing their original
petition in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 153rd
Judicial District, as Cause No. 153-267169-13.
removed the action to this court.
Defendant then
On September 16, 2013,
pursuant to this court's order, defendant filed its amended
notice of removal.
Defendant alleges that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§
1332 because of complete
diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendant, and an
amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs.
In the prayer of their petition, plaintiffs do not state a
specific amount of damages.
The sole statement of the amount of
damages in the petition is that "Plaintiffs assert that their
damages are less than $75,000.00."
at 3.
Am. Notice of Removal, Ex. A
However, defendant contends that the amount in controversy
requirement is met because plaintiffs seek declaratory relief to
enforce an alleged agreement to modify the payment amount on
their mortgage loan.
Defendant argues that granting such relief
will allow plaintiffs to avoid paying the full amount required to
reinstate the mortgage loan, which defendant asserts is in excess
of $75,000.00.
In support of its position, defendant cites to
legal authority standing for the proposition that in an action
for declaratory or injunctive relief, the amount in controversy
is equal to the "value of the object of the litigation."
Notice of Removal at 4.
2
Am.
After having evaluated the amended notice of removal and all
state court documents, 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.
nThe removing
party bears the burden of showing that federal subject matter
jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper."
Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723
2001) .
Manguno v.
(5th Cir.
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. 8ch. 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).
3
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
object of the litigation," or
~the
~value
of 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
Plaintiffs' petition does not make a demand for a specific
amount of damages, but the petition does assert that plaintiffs'
damages are less than $75,000.00.
Therefore, it is not facially
apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy is
4
greater than $75,000, and the court must evaluate the true nature
of plaintiffs' claims to determine the amount actually in
controversy between the parties.
The true nature of this action is to determine the parties'
rights under an alleged agreement to modify the payment amount on
plaintiffs' mortgage loan.
Am. Notice of Removal, Ex. A.
Defendant contends that under the alleged agreement, plaintiffs
would avoid paying the amount required to bring their mortgage
loan current.
Am. Notice of Removal at 4-6.
Defendant alleges
that plaintiffs have failed to submit a payment since 2011 and
that the amount of the principle and interest paYments, as well
as late charges, escrow advances, and other fees and charges,
missed during that time period exceeds $75,000.
rd.
However, the court is not persuaded by defendant's argument.
The amount in controversy must be determined by the value of the
relief sought by the plaintiff, not defendant's speculations on
what its future costs might be.
See Sims v. AT & T Corp., No.
3:04-CV-1972-D, 2004 WL 2964983 at *3
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2004)
(holding that the defendant "cannot establish that the amount in
controversy requirement is satisfied based on the pecuniary
consequence of its compliance with the requested declaratory and
injunctive relief" and reiterating that the "value to the
plaintiff of the right to be enforced" was the proper measure of
5
the amount in controversy)
(emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs'
petition simply states that plaintiffs are seeking to define
their rights under an agreement to pay a specific monthly amount
beginning June 1, 2013.
The petition makes no mention of the
past due amount asserted by defendant or its relationship, if
any, to the alleged agreement.
Simply because defendant believes
that plaintiffs might attempt to avoid repaying a past due amount
on their mortgage loan through a declaration of their rights as
to the alleged agreement does not establish the jurisdictional
amount in controversy.
Further, plaintiffs' specifically assert
that their damages are less than $75,000.
Therefore, defendant 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 is remanding the case to the
state court from which it was removed, because of the failure of
defendant 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
6
---------------------
hereby, remanded to the state court from which it was removed.
SIGNED October 21, 2013.
States
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?